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 46
46 A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods Table 4.1. Examples of generic project goals. Schedule Quality Minimize project delivery time Meet or exceed project requirements Complete the project on schedule Select the best team Accelerate start of project revenue Cost Sustainability Minimize project cost Minimize impact on the environment Maximize project budget Achieve LEED certification Complete the project on budget Choosing the goals that apply to a specific project is the second step in an agency's selection of a delivery method. The third, and equally important step, is the ranking of the goals. Table 4.2 provides examples of goals from transit projects in which alternative delivery methods were used. The project goals in Table 4.2 vary in style and emphasis due to the unique needs of each proj- ect, but the goals all clearly link to the benefits of the project's delivery method. For example, CMR was selected for the Portland Mall project in Oregon because there was a project goal of minimizing disruption to business and minimizing traffic control issues during construction. CMR helps with both of these goals through the contractor's early involvement in design (some- thing that is absent from the DBB method). Likewise, in the T-REX project, the design-builder's involvement in design helped to meet the agency's primary goal of minimizing inconvenience. Additionally, the ability to confirm a fixed price and schedule early in design in the DB method facilitates the goals of meeting or beating the total program budget and schedule. Although not all the ranking of goals in Table 4.2 was provided by the project owners, rank- ing of the project goals is important. On every project there are tradeoffs among schedule, cost, and quality. It is to the project's benefit if the agency, designers, and constructors are aware of, understand, and are in agreement with these project goals. For example, the Rail Runner's first project goal is not to exceed the program budget and the third project goal is to minimize incon- venience to the public. This ranking provides clear direction to the design-builders that mainte- nance of traffic is important, but not at the expense of exceeding the program budget. As previously stated, understanding and communicating a concise set of project goals is per- haps the most important element in selecting an appropriate project delivery method. Agencies should take the time to identify project goals and achieve consensus on their relative importance. This time will be well spent as it will make the project delivery decision clearer. Defining and ranking project goals will also help to define and communicate the criteria for determining over- all project success, thereby informing designers and constructors of the agency's project per- formance measures. Step 3. Review Go/No-Go Decision Points Among the pertinent issues that affect the project delivery decision, there are certain issues that render one or more delivery methods inappropriate. These issues involve project sched- ule constraints; federal, state, and local laws; third-party agreements; and labor union agree- ments. These issues and how they relate to the four primary delivery methods are shown in Table 4.3. The transit agency needs to review these issues to determine if they eliminate any of the delivery methods. In other words, the agency should make a go/no-go decision based on these pertinent issues. The result of this go/no-go study is a listing of delivery methods avail- able to the agency and a documentation of those that are not available for further considera- tion. The flowchart in Figure 4.3 depicts a step-by-step approach to the decision; a description of the approach follows.
OCR for page 46
Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach 47 Table 4.2. Examples of project goals. Delivery Project Project Goals* Method Portland Mall CMR 1. Work with builder to minimize disruption to businesses along right-of- Project, Oregon way; 2. Minimize traffic control issues during construction; 3. Add auto and bike access routes in multimodal approach; and 4. Enhance commitment to public art program by furnishing space for expanded sculpture. Weber County to CMR 1. Maximize cost-effectiveness by using a "bare bones/no frills" approach Salt Lake City to design in order to meet the project budget and qualify for federal Commuter Rail, New Starts funding; Utah 2. Deliver ridership by developing a system that delivers short trip duration and on-time performance; 3. Solicit federal funding; 4. Develop means for outside local match dollars to be incorporated into the project; 5. Encourage involvement in the project development process by including internal and external stakeholders; and 6. Build a sense of project ownership with the public and community stakeholders. Transportation DB 1. Minimize inconvenience to the community, motorists, and the public; Expansion Project 2. Meet or beat the total program budget; (T-REX), 3. Provide for a quality project; and Colorado 4. Meet or beat the schedule of June 30, 2008. Rail Runner DB 1. Cost not to exceed project budget established at $140,000,000; Phase 2, New 2. High-quality, safe, environmentally responsible, durable, and Mexico maintainable project that meets or exceeds all performance specifications and design criteria; 3. Minimum disruption to the traveling public during construction; 4. Contract awarded and Notice to Proceed (NTP) issued by August 31, 2007; 5. Completion of the entire project by October 31, 2008, the Mandatory Completion Date, as specified in Contract Documents Part 1, Special Provision 108, Subsection 108.4.1; and 6. Valid basis for continued evaluation of DB delivery system. Hudson-Bergen DBOM 1. Increase project delivery speed from lengthy planning and slow design Light Rail, New pace; Jersey 2. Seek innovation in cost savings throughout the lifecycle; 3. Seek innovative financing if possible; and 4. Maximize owner staffing capabilities. *The project goals from the T-REX and Rail Runner projects were published in the RFP. The project goals for the Portland Mall project were published in the Tri-Metropolitan County Transportation District fact sheet. The Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail goals were published in internal project development documents. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail goals were stated in research interviews. As depicted in the flowchart in Figure 4.3, the agency should first conduct research into the pertinent issues of federal, state, and local laws; project schedule constraints; third-party agree- ments; and labor union agreements. Federal, state, and local laws can be researched by the agency's general counsel to identify any constraints that must be met during the project deliv- ery method selection process. For example, a jurisdiction with a law that requires award of Table 4.3. Go/no-go issue summary. Issues DBB CMR DB DBOM Project Schedule Constraints /X Federal/State/Local Laws /X /X /X Third-Party Agreements /X /X Labor Unions /X Note. Shaded areas do not need to be considered by the user. / X = Go/no-go decision point
OCR for page 46
48 A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods (1) Collect pertinent information: - Relevant federal/state/local laws, - Schedule constraints, - Potential third-party issues, - Labor union agreements. (2) Review project delivery methods (PDMs) regarding law, schedule constraints, third- party issues, and union agreements. Yes (3) Are any PDMs (4) Document the reasons eliminated? for excluding the PDM(s). No (5) Continue with Step 4. Review PDM Adv/Disadv. Figure 4.3. Go/no-go decision points. construction contracts to the low bidder may have to adopt the low-bid DB award method in order to use DB project delivery. Next, the agency should review any major milestones that could create schedule constraints that would prohibit a traditional DBB delivery (e.g., an aggressive fixed end date, funding availability windows, and so forth). The agency then needs to determine the third-party agreements that will be required (e.g., railroad, utility, permitting, and so forth). Finally, the owner should collect any union agreements that deal with operations and mainte- nance issues of the transit system. The agency's next step is to analyze the results of their review of pertinent issues in relation to the constraints of each delivery method. As depicted in Table 4.3, an issue may exclude one or two of the delivery methods from further consideration. For example, if the project is located in a state where the law does not authorize CMR, this agency can eliminate CMR from the list of available options. Details follow for each of the go/no-go issues. Project Schedule Constraints The traditional DBB delivery method is a linear process that requires the longest delivery period of all four methods. If a DBB project delivery will not yield a finish date within the proj- ect's constraints, DBB need not be considered further. As mentioned in the previous section on project goals, project schedule can be a preeminent factor in project success. Agencies frequently
OCR for page 46
Tier 1--Analytical Delivery Decision Approach 49 give schedule first priority among competing project goals. Agencies most frequently cite short- ening project duration as the reason for using delivery methods other than DBB. Another case of schedule constraint is an agency that would like to award construction before the design is complete. The DBB method will not accommodate this constraint. This kind of schedule constraint may arise when the agency has a fiscal year budget for construction and needs to award the project before the design is finished or when the agency has an opportunity to com- plete a portion of the project before the design is complete (e.g., beginning construction before the end of the construction season). Federal/State/Local Laws Under TCRP Project G-08, a comprehensive survey was conducted of federal and state laws as they pertain to alternative delivery methods. While some states have fully authorized tran- sit agencies to use CMR, DB, and DBOM, there are still some states that prohibit the use of one or all alternative methods. Along with states that allow full use of alternative delivery methods and those that prohibit the use of all or some of the alternative delivery methods, there are states that allow alternative project delivery methods as long as certain conditions are met (e.g., requir- ing extra approvals for projects with alternative delivery methods, putting dollar value limits on the volume of DB or CMR contracts that a state may authorize, or putting limits on the number of projects using an alternative delivery method that a state may authorize each year). Although the results of the survey (based on state laws in December 2006) are included in this report for reference, state laws often change, and it would therefore be prudent for transit agencies to check relevant state and local laws at the time that a particular project delivery method is under consideration. If the federal, state, or local laws prohibit an agency from using an alternative delivery method, generally speaking, it should not be considered further. However, in some cases agen- cies have determined that the use of a particular alternative delivery method was essential for project success and have been successful in drafting legislation to permit an alternative deliv- ery method for a particular project or for general use. For example, DB was not permitted in the State of Colorado when the T-REX project was envisioned. The Regional Transportation District, in concert with the Colorado Department of Transportation, helped to pass legisla- tion permitting use of DB as a project delivery method. These agencies pursued this approval as they developed the project scope. If an agency decides to take this path, it is wise to have a contingency plan for traditional delivery in case the legislation is not approved. This contin- gency plan should be developed with an awareness of the duration of the process, the likeli- hood of achieving approval, and the benefits of using the alternative delivery method. Local laws may also place barriers on the use of a specific delivery method, so they should be checked along with the state laws. Third-Party Agreements All major transit projects affect third parties and require agreements to manage the impacts. Some third parties require a completed set of construction documents to execute an agree- ment. In this case, the requirement for a complete design renders DB and DBOM inappro- priate. For example, if the right-of-way is shared by the project and a railroad company, a full set of drawings may be required by the railroad company prior to signing an agreement or a memorandum of understanding (MOU). In such a project, depending on the circumstances and the rigidity of the third party, DB and DBOM might be eliminated from the list of avail- able options.