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 39
39 with the overall project involving the lead contractor in transitway; consequently, TriMet used a DB approach this case, but these were discussed previously. for this section.32 The Dulles Metrorail is unique among these three A possible lesson from these two projects is the po- projects since it developed out of an unsolicited proposal tential that the CMAR method has to bring construc- allowed by Virginia's PPTA. The unsolicited proposal tion expertise into the preconstruction phase of a pro- was delivered in 1998, and it was not until 2004 that a ject. Such involvement generally promotes better work CA for the total project was executed. Essentially, the sequencing and enables other activities such as con- CA gives DTP the right to develop the project for the structability reviews and value engineering. While the MWAA (recall that Virginia transferred the CA to CMAR approach has been used frequently in commer- MWAA in 2006). The DB project investigated in this cial vertical construction for similar reasons, it has been report was a negotiated contract between DTP and used infrequently on public sector projects. The transit MWAA under the CA. This first phase of the project is community should consider this delivery method along- well under construction, and the contract includes an side other options for its projects, as CMAR is an attrac- aggressive scheduling specification. Daily liquidated tive alternative where an owner 1) desires to retain damages are staged at $25,000 to $100,000 per day and significant influence over design development but still capped at $60 million, but incentives for early comple- wants to fast-track a project; or 2) expects involving a tion are also provided; the contractor may earn up to construction manager early in a project outweighs the $10 million in incentive payments for completing the need for substantial construction pricing competition. project up to 5 months early. The two "conventional" DB projects reinforce the Procurement Processes simple fact that large-scale infrastructure projects often Generally, the procurement processes employed in face unexpected issues. The Largo and BART Extension the case studies were multiphased arrangements where projects were not atypical, and each confronted charac- prequalified teams submitted proposals in response to teristic construction challenges. Such issues caused an RFP. Evaluation methodologies and criteria were significant problems in the BART project. Alternatively, fairly diverse, but broadly speaking, procurement prac- the Dulles Metrorail project demonstrates the potential tices that had characteristics of "best value procure- of public-private arrangements; the unsolicited proposal ments" were observed in five of the seven cases. catalyzed action on a concept that had been notional for There were two "outlier" cases. The BART Extension years. Somewhat paradoxically though, it also high- used a prequalification process, followed by a procure- lights the commercial and legal complexity of such con- ment strategy that ensured that proposals met mini- tractual arrangements. It took nearly 10 years from the mum technical requirements. Award was based on low- original unsolicited proposal for a design and construc- est responsible price. The second outlier case, the tion contract to finally get executed. Dulles Metrorail, was ultimately the result of an unso- licited proposal that generated a CA, and the DB con- CMAR Projects tract for a phase of the overall project outlined in the The two CMAR projects--DART Green Line (North- CA was a negotiated arrangement. west segments) and TriMet Portland Mall Segment-- In the remaining cases, categories of selection crite- were two of the more recent cases studied. As project ria including price were evaluated. Some processes used delivery options continue to open up for owners, new scoring systems for the categories, which provides pro- methods are being employed. In each of these cases, the posers an indication of the relative importance of the projects involved substantial design development activi- criteria. Scoring approaches, however, do not necessar- ties and community engagement. For instance, the ily provide a clear indication of how the points in any Portland Mall project was part of the expansion of light- particular category will be assigned. In other cases, rail service in Portland's southern corridor. The Mall categories were assigned relative weights, while in oth- Segment involved the development of light rail in a ers, categories were only prioritized or the relative im- dense urban setting where disruption of urban busi- portance of the categories was not disclosed. Table 14 nesses was a concern. By involving a construction or- provides a detailed summary of the procurement proc- ganization during the preconstruction phase, TriMet esses for each case sorted by delivery method. The cases was able to work closely with the designer and the con- demonstrate commonality in general procurement ap- struction management team to package the work to proach but some diversity in definition of selection cri- minimize construction impacts. The work proceeded teria and assessment of those criteria. through different zones sequentially to contain activi- ties to specific locations.31 This type of interaction and planning was not necessary on the I-205 portion of the expansion since the railway largely followed an existing 31 TriMet, I-205/Portland Mall: Max Light Rail Fact Sheet 32 1 (2009). Id.