Guide for Design Management on Design-Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Projects (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

90 Contents 91 Case Study—Project: I-15 CORE 103 Case Study—Project: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek— Bundle 401 116 Case Study—Program: Utah Department of Transportation 128 Case Study—Project: SR 99 Tunnel (Alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation a P P E n D I x a Design-Build Full Case Studies

91 Case Study—Project: I-15 CORE 1. Background: Interstate 15 Reconstruction Interstate 15 (I-15) is one of the major highways in Utah and it is the most important north- south corridor in the state. Completed in 1974 (section from St. George to Brigham City), I-15 runs through the central and southwestern parts of the state and serves several major metro- politan areas, such as Salt Lake City, Provo, and Ogden (Figure 1). In the 1990s, I-15 grew outdated and inadequate due to increases in population and traffic. In fact, the Interstate was designed to handle a traffic capacity that was half the traffic capacity recorded in 1997 (FHWA 2006). Therefore, the Utah State Legislature authorized a $1.6 billion project to reconstruct 16 miles of I-15 in Salt Lake County (Figure 2). The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) adopted, for the first time, design-build (D-B) to deliver this mega- project on time for the 2002 Winter Olympics. The I-15 reconstruction project lasted four years (1997–2001) and significantly improved I-15 traffic capacity. Some items included in the scope of work were as follows (FHWA n.d., 2006; UDOT n.d.): • Reconstruction of 16.2 miles of Interstate • Addition of three lanes in both directions—two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and one auxiliary lane • Replacement of 142 bridges • Reconstruction of eight urban interchanges • Reconstruction of three freeway-to-freeway connections 1.1 The Utah County I-15 Corridor Expansion After reconstructing I-15 in Salt Lake County, it was necessary to continue the reconstruc- tion in Utah County (Figure 2). In 2004, UDOT initiated the process to expand I-15 in Utah County (UDOT n.d.) (Figure 3). As a first step, UDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began the environmental impact statement (EIS) procedure to analyze the possibility of improving I-15 in Utah County. In March 2008, the Utah State Legislature authorized the use of state funds for the project and directed UDOT to complete the project scope and to assemble a team in charge of managing the project. In June 2008, the project officially was named Utah County I-15 Corridor Expansion (I-15 CORE), and the project team was assembled. The envi- ronmental NEPA process was initiated in 2004 and completed in August 2008 when FHWA signed the Record of Decision. Given the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis on the U.S. economy, the Utah State Legislature reconsidered the funds allocated for the project. After rec- ognizing the importance of the project for the state economy, the Legislature decided to move forward with the project but cut almost $1 billion from the budget. The budget went from $2.63 billion to $1.725 billion. The legislature also established that UDOT, within the given

92 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects Salt Lake St. George City Ogden Provo Brigham City Figure 1. Map of Interstate 15. Map Data © 2012 Google Salt Lake City County Utah County Figure 2. Map of Salt Lake County and Utah County.

Case Study—Project: I-15 COrE 93 budget, had to reconstruct I-15 at least from American Fork Main Street to Provo Center Street (Figure 2). UDOT had to also deliver the project within a reasonable amount of time. In June 2009, UDOT issued the request for proposals detailing the following project goals (UDOT 2009a): • Deliver I-15 CORE within the budget. • Provide the highest value for the budget. • Minimize inconveniences for the public. • Complete I-15 CORE by 2014. • Uphold the public trust. Given the project goals, UDOT selected D-B as the project delivery method and fixed price/best design as the procurement approach. Under this procurement approach, UDOT established the contract value and challenged the proposers to provide a design that gave the highest value for the budget while meeting the schedule deadline and minimizing inconveniences for the public (Figure 4). Among the three selected design-builders to bid on the project, Provo River Constructors (PRC) was awarded the contract in December 2009. The fixed price/best design procurement approach was extremely successful for UDOT. In fact, PRC proposed to reconstruct 24 miles of the corridor (from Lehi Main Street to Spanish Fork Main Street; Figure 5), whereas the agency was expecting to obtain only the reconstruction of roughly 15 miles (from American Fork Main Street to Provo Center Street) (UDOT n.d.). The design-builder proposed to complete the 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Impact Statement is initiated State legislature project authorization Project team is assembled Record of Decision Request for proposals is released Contract award Construction begins Project is completed 2007 2005 Figure 3. Utah County I-15 Corridor Expansion timeline (UDOT n.d.). $ 1,100 Million t e construcon) s s High-Risk Relocaons $ 2 Million for Beerments Contract Amount + – Amount of Delivered Scope 60 Points Schedule 20 Points Minimize Inconvenience to the Public 20 Points Fixed Price = Best Design 100 Points = + + Best Design Mobilizaon Project Managemen Quality Assuranc Segments (design & Ulie High-Risk Relocaon • • • • • • Figure 4. I-15 CORE fixed price/best design procurement approach.

94 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects project by December 2012, 2 years in advance of the required completion. Some of the project accomplishments were as follows (UDOT n.d., 2012): • Expansion of I-15 by two lanes in each direction from Lehi Main Street to US 6 and by one lane from US 6 to Spanish Fork Main Street • Replacement of the original asphalt pavement with concrete pavement with 40-year design life • Reconstruction and reconfiguration of ten freeway interchanges, among which were a con- tinuous flow intersection and two diverging diamond interchanges • Reconstruction or replacement of 63 bridges • Installation of several advanced traffic management system devices such as sensors, cameras, ramp meters, and permanent variable message signs. 2. Project Partners 2.1 UDOT In accordance with the legislation, UDOT assembled a team in charge of delivering the proj- ect. The team leaders were selected among UDOT employees. Several consultants also were hired. In particular, HNTB (Kansas City, MO) was in charge of providing project management consulting services, such as the following (HNTB 2011): • Human resources • Procurement Figure 5. I-15 CORE map (Credit: UDOT).

Case Study—Project: I-15 COrE 95 • Risk analysis and Monte Carlo assessment • Preliminary design • Utility investigation and master utility agreements • Third party agreements • Design and construction oversight and auditing • Funding scenarios • Project controls/systems • Baseline survey control • Project management • Right-of-way acquisition • Contract administration • Communication and public involvement • Safety and quality oversight. According to the agency’s procedures, an executive steering committee also was appointed. The committee took the major decisions about the project, such as the project procurement characteristics, and oversaw the project delivery team. The committee included UDOT Execu- tive Director, Deputy Executive Director, Region 3 Director, Operations, and Project Develop- ment Director. Furthermore, the project delivery team was supported by the agency’s central office and Region 3 office staff (Figure 6). 2.2 Provo River Constructors PRC was a joint venture headed by Flour Corporation (Irving, TX) that included Ames Construction (Burnsville, MN), Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company (Draper, UT), and Wadsworth Brothers Construction (Draper, UT). The design was contracted out to sev- eral consultants. The main design consultants were Fluor/HDR Global Design Consultants, which led the design; Michael Baker Corporation (Coraopolis, PA); Jacobs Engineering Group (Pasadena, CA); and Kleinfelder West (San Diego, CA). A complete list of PRC members and consultants is presented in Table 1. PROJECT LIFECYCLE ROLE Oversight & Major Decisions Lead Support Procurement Design Construcon 1st 2nd UDOT Central Of. Project Delivery Team (UDOT & HNTB) Execuve Steering Commi‰ee UDOT Central OfficeUDOT Region 3 UDOT Region 3 Figure 6. Role of UDOT and its consultant over project lifecycle. Joint Venture Members Consultants Fluor Corporation. Ames Construction Company, Inc. Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, Inc. Wadsworth Brothers Construction Company, Inc. Fluor/HDR Global Design Consultants, LLC Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. H.W. Lochner, Inc. Kleinfelder West, Inc. Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc. CRS Consulting Engineers, Inc. Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. TransCore IP, Ltd. Stillwell & Associates, PLLC Applied Research Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Psomas CME Transportation Group Table 1. Provo River Constructors members and consultants (UDOT n.d.).

96 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects 3. Project Design Management The following sections describe how the agency and design-builder have organized and con- ducted design management functions. The first section describes the partnering effort between UDOT and PRC that was enacted to facilitate collaboration among parties. Later, the formal processes associated with design management are explained. Next, additional forms of com- munication and coordination are discussed, which were adopted in support of design manage- ment functions (beyond the formal submittal and review process). Finally, a brief overview of pre-award and post-award value engineering procedures is included. 3.1 Collaborative Partnering UDOT implemented two main strategies to foster a successful project completion, to allow effective collaboration and communication among project participants, and to minimize and solve problems and disputes. First, UDOT and the design-builder’s staff co-located. Second, UDOT required a formal partnering process involving all project stakeholders. The Department and the Design-Builder, its Subcontractors, and other stakeholders, where appropriate, agree to utilize a formal partnering process on the Project. The partnering relationship will be structured to draw on the strengths of each organization to identify and achieve reciprocal goals. The objectives include effective and efficient Project performance and completion on schedule, within budget, and in accordance with the Contract Documents (UDOT 2009b). The contract stated also that the agency and the design-builder had to organize a partnering development seminar/team building workshop to initiate the partnering process and to develop and sign a project partnership charter (UDOT 2009b). The mandatory attendees for the seminar/ team were the agency’s management staff, the design-builder’s key personnel, field supervision personnel, and the key management personnel of major consultants and subcontractors. The con- tract mandated that periodical follow-up seminars/workshops were to be held during the project. The cost associated with partnering efforts agreed upon by both the agency and the design-builder did not affect the contract amount and was equally shared between the two parties. 3.2 Formal Design Management Processes To ensure design package quality and compliance with the contractual document require- ments, the agency focused its attention on the development and implementation of the design- builder’s quality program. In fact, UDOT streamlined the review of design packages by limiting the amount of design submittals being reviewed, detailed numerous requirements for the devel- opment of the quality management plan, performed quality oversight, and participated in the design-builder design reviews. 3.2.1 Quality Management Plan UDOT required the design-builder to collect all quality program procedures in a quality manage- ment plan (QMP). The agency detailed several requirements to obtain an effective QMP (Table 2). Furthermore, UDOT required the design-builder to submit the QMP for approval in two stages—Stage 1 for all non-construction-related activities and Stage 2 for all construction- related activities (Figure 7). The contract also stated that: • The design-builder’s senior management had to approve and endorse the QMP. • QMP revisions and changes (e.g., staffing levels, key personnel) proposed by the design-builder had to be approved by the agency. • QMP revisions and changes proposed by the agency had to be addressed by the design-builder within ten working days. • The design-builder had to formally review and assess the effectiveness of the QMP at least quarterly.

Case Study—Project: I-15 COrE 97 Section Requirement General The QMP shall delineate how the Design-Builder will ensure that all disciplines, aspects, and elements of the Work will comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents (p. 1-2) Documentation The QMP shall describe the routing, filing, control, naming convention, and retrieval methods for all documents. […] The QMP shall describe the methods by which all Project documents issued and received by the Design-Builder shall contain the following: 1. A unique serialization. 2. Date issued or received. 3. Project name and number. 4. Specific subject or content of the correspondence. 5. Name of sender and recipient. 6. Reference information to which the correspondence relates, such as prior correspondence (p.1-2) Responsibility, Authority, and Communication The QMP shall describe all confirmation resources, such as auditors, reviewers, checkers, inspectors, and testers that the Design-Builder will utilize (p. 1-3) Planning of Product Realization The QMP shall document the Inspection and Test Plan, which shall describe all of the proposed inspections and tests to be performed throughout the construction process. The QMP shall include a procedure that standardizes the format and structures of documented processes, such as the Maintenance Work Plan, Environmental Protection Program, Design-Build Aesthetics and Landscaping Concept Design Report, and Geotechnical Instrumentation Plan (pp. 1-5, 1-6) Design and Development Planning The QMP shall meet the following requirements: 1. Describe the design (QC) and confirmation (QA) activities separately; 2. Describe how the design team schedules the design efforts, including design reviews; confirmation and checking stages; and issue dates of design submittals; 3. Identify the Control Points at which Work shall be formally accepted by QA personnel prior to proceeding to the next stage of the Work; and, 4. Describe the coordination of the design with construction (pp. 1-7, 1-8) Design and Development Inputs The QMP shall describe how all design criteria, Contract Document requirements, and other design inputs are defined, reviewed, and approved (p. 1-8) Design and Development Outputs The QMP shall define the design outputs (i.e., the specific plans and specifications) to be produced (p. 1-8) Design and Development Review The QMP shall describe the frequency, timing, content, and format of such reviews (p. 1- 8) Design and Development Validation The QMP shall describe all confirmation, validation, monitoring, inspection, and activities to be carried out for the purposes of demonstrating that the Work is acceptable (p. 1-8) Control of Design and Development Changes The QMP shall describe how changes to design inputs are identified, reviewed, and approved by authorized personnel prior to their implementation. The QMP shall describe how changes to design outputs are categorized (i.e., minor versus major) and approved. The QMP shall describe the method of communicating changes or revisions to or from the field (pp. 1-8, 1-9) Monitoring and Measurement The QMP shall describe the Design-Builder’s approach to ensuring the Department has the opportunity to attend Control Point reviews (i.e., sampling and testing of construction products) (p. 1-9) Control of Nonconforming Product The QMP shall describe the approach to resolving differences in quality results between QC (i.e., quality control), QA (quality assurance) and/or QO (quality oversight) (p. 1-11) Analysis of Data The QMP shall describe the approach to summarizing, analyzing and reporting monthly on the effectiveness and continued improvement of the Quality Program (p. 1-11) Table 2. QMP contractual requirements (UDOT 2009c). Design-builder submits QMP Stage 1 UDOT reviews QMP Stage 1 Is revision sasfactory? Yes No QMP Stage 1 is approved UDOT provides comments within 15 working days Design-builder submits QMP Stage 2 UDOT reviews QMP Stage 2 Is revision sasfactory? Yes No QMP Stage 2 is approved UDOT provides comments within 15 working days Figure 7. QMP approval and review procedure workflow.

98 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects 3.2.2 Quality Oversight, Assurance, and Control The agency performed quality oversight (QO) during the project to ensure design-builder compliance with the QMP and additional contract requirements and identify areas of improve- ment. In particular, QO staff oversaw the design-builder’s activities by performing audits, reviews, interviews, inspections, and tests. Furthermore, the contract described roles and responsibilities of the design-builder’s personnel in charge of implementing quality assurance and control pro- cedures (Table 3). 3.2.3 Design Reviews As shown in Table 2, the design-builder determined design review “frequency, timing, con- tent, and format” (UDOT 2009c p. 1-8). The design-builder performed four reviews for each design package at 30%, 60%, and 90% design complete and release for construction. Although the agency did not review all design packages, the contract required that: • The agency had to be invited to a minimum of two separate design reviews for each design package. • The reviews had to occur prior to issuance of release for construction documents. • At least one review had to be performed prior to 70% design complete. The contract also stated the following: The reviews are not hold points that restrict the progress of design. They are reviews of the design as it progresses, which provide opportunities for the Department to comment on the design. The Design- Builder shall respond to the Department’s review comments via the Department’s quality database. Review comments will include potential Nonconforming Work and opportunities for improvement (UDOT 2009c p. 1-8). Furthermore, the design-builder was required to submit four design submittals for each design package—situation layout plans, released for construction documents, final design docu- ments, and as-built documents (Table 4). However, these design submittals did not have to be approved by the agency (Table 5). 3.3 Other Forms of Communication and Coordination In addition to QO-related activities, the agency and the design-builder could communicate about design matters during the following times: 1. Informal face-to-face meetings. UDOT and the design-builder’s staff co-located so the design- builder’s construction and design personnel could communicate directly with the agency. Role Role and Responsibility QA Manager 1. Have overall responsibility for implementing the requirements of the QMP to assure success of the Quality Program. 2. Have no responsibilities in the production of the Work. QA Staff 1. Be responsible for quality. 2. Provide a certified testing laboratory located within 20 miles of the Project Site. 3. Have no responsibilities in the production of the Work. 4. Have no reporting responsibilities to production. 5. Have the authority to stop Work. 6. Be responsible for confirming and providing confidence that all Work meets or will meet the Contract requirements. 7. Be co-located at the Project and Segment offices. QC Staff 1. Be responsible for quality. 2. Only have responsibilities in the production of the Work and shall remain independent of the QA staff. 3. Have the authority to stop Work. Table 3. Quality assurance and quality control staff roles and responsibilities (UDOT 2009c p. 1-3).

Case Study—Project: I-15 COrE 99 2. Electronic communications and phone calls. The contract required the design-builder to utilize a web application platform to manage all electronic documentation (UDOT 2009c). UDOT and design-builder’s staff could communicate directly through phone calls and e-mails. 3. Formal meetings. Per contractual agreement, the design-builder had to “plan for weekly and monthly meetings with the Department to discuss Project progress, issues, and all planned Work” (UDOT 2009c p. 2-17). Two types of meetings were organized to communicate specifi- cally on design matters—technical work group (TWG) meetings and area meetings. TWG meet- ings were held weekly and focused on a specific discipline (e.g., design, utility, right-of-way). Given that the project involved the reconstruction of 24 miles, the design-builder also held area meetings to discuss issues pertaining to different geographical locations. Generally, the design- builder led TWG and area meetings and invited the agency to attend them. Furthermore, formal issue resolution meetings could be held to discuss and solve problems and disputes. 3.4 Value Engineering To allow and foster the proposal of original technical solutions during the pre- and post- award phases, UDOT established value engineering procedures. In particular, ATC were allowed Situation and Layout Plans Provide Situation and Layout plan sheets for all bridges, box culverts, rigid frame drainage structures, retaining walls, and noise walls, in accordance with the Situation and Layout Checklist in Structures Design and Detailing Manual. Assign a structure number to each structure. Released for Construction Documents Released for Construction Documents shall constitute all documents issued for the purposes of construction. All Released for Construction Documents shall meet the following requirements: Design all Work, including modifications to the Work, under the direct supervision of a Professional Engineer with a current Utah license Indicate the timing of submission of these documents in the Project Schedules. Prepare plans similar in appearance to the UDOT Plan Sheet (Development) Standards and Structures Design and Detailing Manual. Prepare specifications in accordance with the UDOT Specification Writer’s Guide. Variations are anticipated as a result of Design-Build delivery. Meet with the Department to obtain Approval of any variations in plan content and format. Final Design Documents Final Design Documents shall meet the requirements of the Released for Construction Documents and the following additional requirements: Shall be fully completed Released for Construction Documents, except for necessary field design changes, for a geographic area organized by discipline. Include design information from the most current version of Released for Construction Documents and all design back-up information, including design plans, shop drawings, calculations, reports, specifications, and electronic MicroStation data. […] As-Built Documents As-Built Documents shall meet the requirements of the Final Design Documents and reflect the actual condition of the final constructed Work. Table 4. Design submittals requirements (UDOT 2009c pp. 3-1, 3-3). Submittal For Approval Schedule Bridge situation and layout plans along with bridge foundation and hydraulic design recommendations No Prior to submission of released for construction documents Released for construction documents No Prior to construction contemplated in the construction documents Final design documents No At completion of all design development As-built documents No Prior to final acceptance Table 5. Submittal table (UDOT 2009c p. 3-5).

100 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects in the pre-award phase, while value engineering change proposals (VECP) were allowed in the post-award phase. 3.4.1 Pre-Award Value Engineering: Alternative Technical Concepts In the request for proposals, UDOT defined ATCs as alternatives that are “equal or better in quality or effect” (UDOT 2009a p. 9). Furthermore, the agency stated that “a concept is not an ATC if, in the Department’s sole judgment, it merely results in reduced quantities, performance or reliability” (UDOT 2009a p. 9). Proposed ATCs were discussed during one- on-one meetings, and the agency determined to provide one of the following judgments to a proposed ATC: 1. The ATC is approved for inclusion in the Proposal. 2. The ATC is not approved for inclusion in the Proposal. 3. The ATC is not approved in its present form, but may be approved upon the satisfaction, in the Department’s sole discretion, of certain identified conditions which must be met or clarifications or modifications that must be made. 4. The submittal does not qualify as an ATC but may be included in Proposer’s Proposal because it appears to be within the requirements of the RFP (UDOT 2009a p. 11). Furthermore, the agency could approve ATCs that required additional permits, properties, or utility work. Nevertheless, the design-builder retained full responsibility for obtaining and paying for the additional permits, properties, or utility work. Although ATCs were confidential until contract award, the agency stated the following: If the Department determines, based on a proposed ATC or otherwise, that the RFP contains an error, ambiguity, or mistake, the Department reserves the right to modify the RFP to correct the error, ambiguity, or mistake, regardless of any impact on a proposed ATC (UDOT 2009a p. 11). 3.4.2 Post-Award Value Engineering: Value Engineering Change Proposals UDOT also encouraged the design-builder to submit VECPs by awarding 50% of the esti- mated net savings (Figure 8). 4. Interdependencies Between Design and Other Activities 4.1 Environmental Permits UDOT was responsible for completing the NEPA documentation and obtaining the major environmental permits, such as the Record of Decision from the FHWA and the permit for Sec- tion 404 of the Clean Water Act that regulates impact on wetlands from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The design-builder was responsible for obtaining the remaining environmental permits, such as the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) general permit for construction activities, the stream alteration permits, and any permit modifications. *including costs relang to any Relocaons and ROW and implementaon costs Esmated contract cost without VECP Esmated net savings = Esmated contract cost with VECP Design-builder’s expenditures in preparing the VECP Agency’s expenditures due to the VECP* ( )- - - Figure 8. Estimated net saving equation.

Case Study—Project: I-15 COrE 101 4.2 Other Permits The design-builder was responsible for obtaining all construction-related permits, such as permits for construction, maintenance, and removal of temporary roadways and any permits from railroad companies for conduit crossings. 4.3 Right-of-Way (ROW) UDOT was responsible for procuring the necessary properties. To allow the proposers to design the facility and develop the project schedule effectively, the agency detailed the proper- ties it was going to acquire based on the existing preliminary design and provided a property acquisition schedule during the procurement phase. Moreover, UDOT allowed the proposers to identify additional properties through the ATC process. Nevertheless, UDOT did not retain any risk associated with the acquisition of these additional properties. “In the event that implemen- tation of an ATC will require additional real property or Utility Work, the Design-Builder shall have full responsibility for paying for any such real property and any related costs including any necessary Environmental Approvals, or performing any such Utility Work without the right to a Change Order” (UDOT 2009a p. 9) 4.4 Utility Relocation The agency signed a master utility agreement with all utility owners affected by the project. This effort began prior to contract award and was concluded after contract award. The design- builder was responsible to develop the supplemental utility agreements. Therefore, the design- builder had to coordinate all design and construction activities with utility owners. 4.5 Public Involvement The public involvement efforts were led by the agency with the design-builder in a support role. Division of responsibilities for public involvement activities is described in Table 6. Agency Design-Builder Shared Oversight Status, schedule updates to public Communication with public and media communications Communications strategy Crisis communications execution Public involvement plan development Research/surveys Messaging Branding Web site Hotline, email Prepare monthly status reports Provide information Provide emergency response contact list Maintain constituent issues and complaints log Respond to constituent issues and complaints Review monthly status report with PI team Event participation Crisis communication plan Table 6. Public involvement responsibilities (adapted from UDOT 2009d).

102 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects References Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). “I-15 Corridor Reconstruction.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_ profiles/ut_i15_corridor.htm (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). Federal Highway Administration. (2006). “I-15 Reconstruction—Salt Lake City, UT.” Office of Operations: 21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technologies, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/mitig_ traf_cong/slc_case.htm (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). HNTB. (2011). “CORE Competencies.” HNTB Designer, 95. UDOT. (n.d.). “I-15 and Utah Transportation History.” http://www.i15core.utah.gov/timeline/ (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). UDOT. (n.d.). “Utah County Corridor Expansion (I-15 CORE)—Home.” http://www.i15core.utah.gov/index. php (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). UDOT. (n.d.). “Utah County Corridor Expansion (I-15 CORE)—Project Information.” http://www.i15core. utah.gov/project_information.php (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). UDOT. (2009a). “Instruction to Proposers.” Request for Proposals, I-15 Utah County Corridor Expansion. UDOT. (2009b). “Part One: General Provisions.” I-15 CORE Project No. MP-I15-6(178)245. UDOT. (2009c). “Part Two: General Requirements.” I-15 CORE Project No. MP-I15-6(178)245. UDOT. (2009d). “Part Three: Design Requirements—Performance Specifications.” I-15 CORE Project No. MP- I15-6(178)245. UDOT. (2012). “Projects and Studies—I-15 Utah County Corridor Expansion.” http://www.udot.utah.gov/ main/f?p=100:pg:::::T,V:2161,56820.

103 Case Study—Project: Elk Creek— Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 1. Background 1.1 The Oregon Transportation Investment Acts At the end of the twentieth century, Oregon faced a lack of funds to properly maintain and improve the state’s highway infrastructure. The State of Oregon issued various bills to constitute sections of the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA), which provided the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) with almost $3 billion to improve state, county, and city roads and bridges. In particular, four house bills were approved by the Oregon State Legislature. In 2001, the Legislature passed OTIA I (House Bill 2142), which authorized the issuance of up to $400 million in highway user tax bonds to improve lane capacity and interchanges, maintain road pavement, and repair and replace bridges (ODOT, n.d.-a) (Table 7). In 2002, the Legisla- ture passed OTIA II (House Bill 4010), which amended the previous bill. To take advantage of favorable bond rates, OTIA II extended the issuance of bonds from $400 million to $500 million. Under OTIA I & II, ODOT completed the following (ODOT n.d.-a): 1. More than 50 projects to improve lane capacity and interchanges. 2. More than 40 projects to maintain state highway and local road pavement. 3. More than 50 projects to repair or replace state and local bridges. In 2003, the Legislature passed OTIA III (House Bill 2041), which provided ODOT with more than $2.4 billion (Table 7) and doubled ODOT’s annual construction program (ODOT, n.d.-b). The main focus of OTIA III was to repair or replace hundreds of concrete bridges that were reaching the end of their design lives. In particular, ODOT allocated $300 million to repair or replace about 140 bridges on county and city highways and created a $1.3 billion program called OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program to repair or replace 365 aging bridges on state highways across the state. In 2005, the Legislature passed House Bill 3415, which authorized ODOT to re-allocate unspent funds from their OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program to other needed projects, including highway and freight projects. Given the magnitude of the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program, ODOT would have had to hire almost 600 employees to deliver the program using only in-house personnel (ODOT, n.d.-c). So in 2004, the Legislature passed a budget note1 (House Bill 5077—Budget Note #2) stating that ODOT was expected to contract with the private sector to manage the overall 1 In Oregon, “budget notes are highlighted items in the budget denoting areas of special interest for the legislature. They are directive in nature, but do not hold the weight of law and could request reports on issues at periodic intervals.” [source: http://www.ode.state.or.us/services/budget/glossary.aspx] “Budget notes are not part of the budget itself and do not affect the numbers. Instead they add information or provide recommendations for future budgets.” [source: http://www.ehow.com/ info_8340037_budget-notes.html]

104 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects implementation of OTIA III and the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program (Oregon State Legislature 2004). The Legislature specified the following: The Department [i.e., ODOT] and the private sector are directed to develop a strategy to complete the bridge repair and replacement program that maximizes the following: 1. Ease of traffic movement—contracting strategies that keep traffic moving will minimize effects on other industries and the public; 2. Expedient delivery—quick project delivery will allow freedom of freight movement and ensures that products can be delivered throughout the state; 3. Involvement of Oregon construction firms and employees—the use of Oregon firms and employees, emerging small businesses and minorities will result in economic stimulus that will benefit the state overall (Oregon State Legislature 2004). Based on the Legislature’s input, five primary goals for the program were identified (ODOT 2005): 1. Stimulate Oregon’s economy. 2. Employ efficient and cost effective delivery practices. 3. Maintain freight mobility and keep traffic moving. 4. Build projects sensitive to their communities and landscape. 5. Capitalize on funding opportunities. 1.2 Oregon 38: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 To allow local construction companies with limited bonding possibilities to participate in the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program and thus stimulate Oregon’s economy, the projects were grouped into bundles of different sizes and bridge types (ODOT 2005). Bundle 401 is the object of this case study (Figure 10). This bundle consisted of five replacement concrete bridges (bridge# 01614, 01601, 01465, 01406, and 01424) on Oregon Route 38 between Elkton and Drain. Oregon Route 38 (Figure 9 and Figure 11), also known as Umpqua Highway No. 45, is a state highway connecting the city of Reedsport on the Pacific Coast with Interstate 5. The total OTIA Improve Lane Capacity and Interchanges Maintain Road Pavement Repair or Replace Bridges Total I $200 $70 $130 $400 II $50 $5 $45 $100 III $500 $361 $1,600 $2,461 Table 7. OTIA budgets, in millions (ODOT, n.d.-a). Reedsport Elkton Drain 01614 01601; 01406; 01465 01424 Figure 9. Bundle 01 bridge position on Oregon Route 38 (adapted from image in public domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oregon_Route_38.svg).

Case Study—Project: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 105 bundle cost was $46,390,721 ($45,900,500 of base contract amount and $490,221 of total change order amount). The schedule milestones are presented in Table 8. 2. Project Partners 2.1 Oregon Department of Transportation To implement OTIA III, ODOT changed substantially its project delivery approach in terms of internal organization and use of in-house vs. external consultant personnel. The major changes are described in the following sections. Map Data © 2012 Google Map Data © 2012 Google 01614 01424 Map Data © 2012 Google 01601 01465 01406 Figure 10. Bundle 401 bridges (Credit: 2012 Google). Figure 11. Bridge 01601 under construction (Credit: OBDP).

106 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects 2.1.1 OTIA III Bridge Delivery Unit ODOT created a new unit, called Bridge Delivery Unit, under the Major Project Branch (Fig- ure 12) with 22 staff members in charge of overseeing the delivery of the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program (ODOT n.d.-c). ODOT divides highway operations into five geographical regional offices (i.e., Region Offices in Figure 12). Although these regional offices are in charge of managing the maintenance and construction of highway projects, the Bridge Delivery Unit acted independently of the regional offices in overseeing the bridge construction operations. Several external consultants also were hired to create the Bridge Standing Implementation Team. The team’s objective was to support the Bridge Delivery Unit in implementing the State Bridge Delivery Program. In particular, Parametrix (Auburn, WA) led the effort in collecting environmental data, developing performance standards, establishing the mitigation banking program, training agency staff, and implementing the NEPA approach. David Evans and Asso- ciates (Portland, OR) and W&H Pacific (Bend, OR) led the effort in collecting the engineering data (ODOT n.d.-d) (Figure 13). 2.1.2 Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners ODOT selected Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP; Salem, OR), a joint venture of HDR (Omaha, NE) and Fluor (Irving, TX), to manage the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program. OBDP has performed a role of owner representative under this outsourcing scheme (Figure 14). 2.1.3 Project Delivery Process ODOT and OBDP collaborated closely to develop a comprehensive project delivery toolbox that included design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (D-B), and construction-manager-as-general- contractor (CMGC). About D-B projects, ODOT determined the following: A contract is executed directly between ODOT and the design-build team. OBDP does not directly par- ticipate in the selection process or execute a contract, but the OBDP Design-Build Project Manager sup- ports ODOT during the process and assists in developing procurement documents. Once a Notice to Date Milestone November 2005 Notice to proceed (NTP) for DB procurement is issued May 2006 Request for qualification (RFQ) is issued March 2006 Request for proposal (RFP) is issued December 2006 NTP for the selected design-builder is issued February 2008 50% of the bundle is complete June 2009 Bundle completion Table 8. Bundle 401 schedule milestones. Oregon Transportaon Commission Oregon Department of Transportaon Central Service Division Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Division Highway Division Motor Carrier Division Public Transit Division Rail Division Transportaon Development Division Transportaon Safety Division 5 Region Offices Highway Program Office Major Projects Branch Office for Maintenance & Operaons Statewide Traffic Mobility Local Government Secon Office of Innovave Partnerships Technical Services Branch Contracng Services Unit Communicaons & Stakeholders Unit Major Projects Unit Development Unit OTIA III Bridge Delivery Unit Office Administraon Unit Figure 12. ODOT organizational chart.

Case Study—Project: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 107 Proceed is issued to the design-builder, the OBDP Design-Build Construction Coordinator takes over as the project manager, similar to design-bid-build projects, and is closely supported by an OBDP Design Coordinator (ODOT, 2005, p. 32). Furthermore, ODOT and OBDP developed a series of steps to implement the different deliv- ery methods (OBDP, n.d.; ODOT, 2005). The steps for projects delivered with D-B are presented in Table 9 and Figure 15. 2.2 Slayden Construction Group Slayden Construction Group (Stayton, OR) was the selected contractor for Bundle 401. As discussed previously, Slayden signed the contract with ODOT, and OBDP acted as owner repre- sentative. Slayden contracted out the design and design quality control to T.Y. Lin International ODOT Bridge Standing Implementa on Team ODOT Engineering Program Manager ODOT Environmental Program Manager David Evans Associated Engineering Team Manager Cost Es mates Maintenance Geohydro Right of Way U lity Roadway Parametrix Environmental Team Manager Air Quality Archeology HazMat Historic Land Use/ Socioeconomic/ Visual Noise Regulatory Compliance Website Data Management/ GIS Document Produc on NEPA Performance Standards Natural Resource Baseline QA/QC Mi ga on Banking Public Involvement/ Communica ons Figure 13. ODOT bridge standing implementation team organizational chart (adapted from ODOT [n.d.-d]). Contract Services Major Projects Branch Communicaons Engineering and Construcon OTIA III Bridge Delivery Unit Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners Oregon Department of Transportaon Program Manager Strategic Communicaons Diversity Management Public Relaons/ Public Involvement Deputy Program Manager/ Business Manager Facilies Project Controls Closeout Financial Management IT/IS/GIS Economic Smulus Technical Editor Procurement/ Contracts/ Safety Document Management Delivery Manager Engineering Environmental Traffic Mobility Figure 14. OBDP organizational chart.

No. Description 1 Bundle Development. Bridges are bundled to optimize the delivery of the bridge program. Out-of-scope work elements and project special needs are also identified and considered. Input is obtained from the region and design technical staff on the scope of work for each bridge. The internal kick-off meeting (the start of the D-B procurement phase) concludes this process. 2 Data Collection/Concept Design. Essential project data is collected from available sources including the regions, key stakeholders, and through site visits. A risk assessment meeting is conducted to determine, allocate and mitigate risks between the Design-Builder and ODOT. Conceptual Design is performed to collect data, identify design exceptions and define the limits of the project for conclusion in the Requests for Proposals. Completion of Concept Design deliverables concludes this process. 3 Request for Qualifications/Draft RFP. The information required to evaluate and shortlist qualified design-build teams is developed in the Requests for Qualifications. Concurrent with the RFQ, the draft Request for Proposals is developed. This step concludes after the Statement of Qualifications is received and the notification of shortlist is issued. 4 Request for Proposal. The performance specifications and all exhibits that will form the contract for the project bundle are developed. This step concludes with issuance of the Request for Proposal (RFP) to the shortlist. 5 Design-Build Firm Proposal Preparation. The shortlisted, qualified design-build teams develop their complete offer. This step concludes with submission of their design-build proposals. 6 Scoring and Selection of Design-Build Team. A comprehensive evaluation of the technical commercial proposals takes place to score the design-build teams. This step concludes with issuance of notice of competitive range (NOCR). 7 Contract Negotiations and Award. A contract is negotiated with the selected design-build team or the alternate, if necessary. This step concludes with issuance of a Notice to Proceed to the design-builder. 8 Project Kick-Off. The Project Kick-Off meeting brings together project management, key technical staff associated with the project, the contractors/subcontractors, and key stakeholders to review the schedule and identify potential construction, traffic, and mobility issues. The meeting establishes a team-wide understanding of the planned project staging and sets the ground rules, roles, and expectations for the parties involved. This step concludes with the design mobilization meeting. 9 Progress 0%-50%. The design-builder’s work progresses to the point where 50% of the total contract budget has been expended. This step concludes when cumulative invoices equal to or exceeding 50% of the design-build contract budget have been verified, submitted and paid. 10 Progress 50%-100%. The design-builder’s work progresses […] and all required work has been successfully completed. […] 11 Project Closeout. This step includes final documentation of the contract bid item work and concludes when semi-final project documentation is complete, which is generally within ninety days of the issuance of Second Notice (referred to in the D-B contract as the ‘‘third notification’’). Table 9. D-B implementation steps (OBDP, n.d.). 1. B un dl e D ev el op m en t 2. D at a Co lle cti on / Co nc ep t D es ig n 3. R eq ue st fo r Q ua lifi ca tio ns / D ra ft R FP 4. R eq ue st fo r P ro po sa l 5. D es ig n- Bu ild F ir m Pr op os al P re pa ra tio n 6. S co ri ng a nd S el ec tio n of D es ig n- Bu ild T ea m 7. C on tr ac t N eg oti ati on s an d Aw ar d 8. P ro gr es s 0% -5 0% 9 . P ro gr es s 50 % -1 00 % 10 . P ro je ct C lo se ou t DESIGN-BUILD STEPS ROLE Support Lead ODOT OBDP ODOT-BDU ODOT-BDU OBDP ODOT Procurement OperationsDesign & Construction PROJECT LIFECYCLE Figure 15. Role of ODOT Bridge Delivery Unit (BDU), OBDP, and ODOT (other units/departments) during D-B steps and project lifecycle (adapted from ODOT 2005).

Case Study—Project: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 109 (San Francisco, CA) and hired Cooper Zietz Engineers (Portland, OR) to perform the quality assurance work. In accordance with contractual requirements (ODOT 2007a), the Project, Design, and Construction Quality Managers were independent of the design-builder’s produc- tion team, and the Project Quality Manager reported directly to Slayden senior management. Bundle 401 contractual framework and the design-builder organizational chart are shown in Figures 16 and 17, respectively. 3. Project Design Management The following sections describe how ODOT, OBDP, and the design-builder organized and conducted design management functions on the bundle. The first section describes the partner- ing effort between ODOT and OBDP and the design-builder. Later, the formal processes asso- ciated with design management are described. Next, additional forms of communication and coordination adopted in support of design management functions (beyond the formal submittal and review process) are discussed. Finally, a brief overview of pre-award and post-award value engineering procedures is included. 3.1 Collaborative Partnering To foster successful bridge replacement program completion, OBDP collaborated closely with all program stakeholders. In the early stages of the bridge replacement program, OBDP held numerous alignment meetings with ODOT Bridge Delivery Unit, ODOT regional office staff members, and all other program stakeholders (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, Dept. of Employment, Dept. of Economic and Community Development). Furthermore, OBDP co-located with ODOT Bridge Delivery Unit during the program. However, ODOT and OBDP could not co-locate with the design-builders because several projects were performed simulta- neously. ODOT and OBDP agreed to hold a project kick-off meeting with each design-builder. ODOT Slayden Construcon Group Cooper Zietz Engineers Other Subcontractors T.Y. Lin Internaonal OBDP Figure 16. Bundle 401 contractual framework. LEGEND Manager Slayden Construc on Group T.Y. Lin Interna onal Cooper Zietz Engineers Slayden Senior Management Project Manager Superintendent Construc on Manager Design Manager Project Quality Manager Design Quality Construc on Quality Manager Design Disciplines Bridge Roadway Environmental Hydraulics Traffic Contro • • • • • l Figure 17. Streamlined design-builder organizational chart.

110 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects This meeting was structured to establish a collaborative partnering work relationship among project participants. The meeting characteristics are presented in Table 9. 3.2 Formal Design Management Processes 3.2.1 Amount of Design Provided in the Request for Proposal Before issuing the RFP for a bundle, the agency prepared an engineering baseline report for each bridge in the bundle to mitigate major areas of risk, such as environmental permitting, right-of-way (ROW), utility relocation, and railroad interferences. These reports were avail- able to the bidders together with summarized “information about the current bridge structure, conditions at the bridge site, the repair/replacement options evaluated, the feasible alignment option (i.e., the preferred option), construction issues and potential impacts at the site, estimated schedule and budget, and technical reference materials” (ODOT, n.d.-e). The agency also pro- vided supplementary pieces of information in the RFP, such as the available ROW, specifications, geotechnical information, and LADAR data. However, no conceptual design was provided. 3.2.2 Design Milestones Per contractual agreement (ODOT 2007b), the agency required the design-builder to prepare the following design milestones for each design package (Figure 18). 1. Concept plans. These plans include the conceptual plans submitted by the design-builder in the proposal and the results of contractual negotiations. 2. Definitive design. Documents at definitive design level include the preliminary design (i.e., TS&L) for each bridge. They may include preliminary foundation, hydraulics, slope stability, site investigation findings, and environmental reports. 3. Interim design. Any document between the definitive design level and readiness-for- construction level is considered at interim design level. For these bundles, the design-builder decided to have two interim design milestones at 30% and 60% design complete. 4. Readiness-for-construction (RFC). Documents at the RFC level include final plans and specifications, quantity estimates, and final environmental documentation for each bridge in the bundle. 5. Working plans. These documents include erection details; plans for shop fabrication, trench- ing, and shoring; etc. Working Plans may not be necessary for the design packages. 6. As-constructed (AC). Documents at the AC level include AC plans and specifications, final design reports and calculations, warranties, and operations and maintenance manuals, procedures, and instructions. 3.2.3 Design Reviews Per contractual agreement (ODOT 2007b), the agency required the review of each design milestone submittal (except concept plans) according to the following steps: Step 1. A checker (i.e., a peer of the designer or originator of the document) verifies that plans and specifications are correct and complete. Concept Plans Definive Design Interim Design Readiness-for- Construcon Working Plans As- ConstructedConstrucon Contract Award Figure 18. Design milestone development process (adapted from ODOT 2007b).

Case Study—Project: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 111 Step 2. The Design Quality Manager verifies that plans and specifications are correct and complete and certifies that plans and specifications meet the contractual requirements. Step 3. After receiving the design package and the Design Quality Manager certifications, the agency Project Manager, supported by OBDP staff and other project stakeholders interested in the design package, performs the design package review and consolidates the reviews and com- ments into the Review Comment Form (Figure 19). Although the agency had 21 business days to transmit the Review Comment Form to the design-builder, the average review duration was ten business days. Step 4. The design-builder addresses the comments in the Review Comment Form and incor- porates them into the design package. If necessary, the design-builders can meet with the agency and OBDP personnel to further discuss and resolve the comments and reviews. In addition to the design reviews required by the agency, the design-builder construction personnel also performed internal constructability reviews simultaneously to the agency reviews (i.e., step 3). The agency also required the design-builder to develop a detailed schedule of all design mile- stone submittals (except concept plans). The agency detailed the major features of the design reviews in the contract (Table 10). 3.3 Other Forms of Communication and Coordination In addition to participating in the design reviews, the project stakeholders and the design- builder could communicate during the following times: • Informal meetings and phone calls. The design-builder and its consultants were encour- aged to contact the agency and OBDP personnel to informally discuss issues and design approaches. • Weekly meetings. Interactions between ODOT and OBDP and the design-builder on design matters occurred mostly through weekly meetings that were jointly attended by the design- builder design and construction personnel. These meetings were not required contractually and were organized and led by the design-builder Project Manager. During the meetings, Bundle No.: 0 Date: All Br/Proj No.: 0 Contract No.: 0 Discipline: Key No.: 0 Doc. Reviewed: 0 Reviewer: Comment Disposition: A = Will Comply; B = Needs Further Investigation; C = Delete Comment; and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa D = Comment Resolved D EF IN IT IV E D ES IG N Ref. General Comments Init. Disp. Response Fin. Disp. Verified 1 2 … D EF IN IT IV E D ES IG N Ref. Comment on Bridge/Project No. XXX Init. Disp. Response Fin. Disp. Verified 1 2 … Figure 19. Review Comment Form template.

112 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects the agency and ODBP representatives could perform constructability and over-the-shoulder reviews. Issues encountered by project participants could be discussed. 1. Attendees. Generally, the attendees were the ODOT Project Manager; OBDP representatives; design-builder Project Manager and Superintendent; design-builder Construction, Design, and Quality Managers; Design Discipline Leads; and, if necessary, large subcontractors and environmental staff. Definitive Design Review The Definitive Design Review shall be the first Design Review requiring participation of Agency and is intended to verify that the Contract Baseline Concepts proposed by Design-Builder meet all Contract requirements. The Design Quality Manager shall verify prior to the Definitive Design Review that: All Contract requirements applicable to the proposed Contract Baseline Concepts, including all applicable Standards and Legal Requirements, have been identified, and the proposed Contract Baseline Concepts are in compliance The Contract Baseline Concepts are substantiated and justified by adequate site investigation and analysis Right-of-Way requirements have been identified The proposed Contract Baseline Concepts are constructible Required Materials and Equipment are available The Contract Baseline Concepts meet all quality requirements, and all required design quality procedures have been followed Interim Design Review Design development occurring after Definitive Design Acceptance and prior to Readiness-for-Construction submittal may call for Interim Designs to remedy conflicts, account for exceptions, and incorporate betterments. Design-Builder shall notify Agency if Interim Design Reviews are necessary for particular Design Units, and shall schedule the necessary Design Reviews following independent review by the Design Quality Manager, which may be presented at a design workshop or meeting with Agency. Design-Builder shall also use Interim Design Reviews to verify that the concepts and parameters established and represented by Definitive Design are being followed, and that all Contract requirements continue to be met. Design- Builder shall specifically highlight, check, and bring to the attention of Agency any information differing from or supplemental to that presented at the Definitive Design Review. Significant changes to the Definitive Design will require a re-submittal and Agency review and Acceptance prior to the submittal of the Readiness-for-Construction Plans and Specifications. Readiness-for-Construction Design Review Design-Builder shall use the Readiness-for-Construction Design Review to verify that the concepts and parameters established and represented by Definitive Design are being followed and that all Contract requirements continue to be met. Design-Builder shall specifically highlight, check, and bring to the attention of Agency any information differing from or supplemental to that presented at the Definitive Design Review. Prior to scheduling the Readiness- for-Construction Design Review with Agency, the Design Quality Manager’s independent review shall have been completed. Working Plans Design Review It shall be solely Design-Builder’s responsibility to provide Working Plans of such a nature as to develop a finished Project in accordance with the Readiness-for-Construction Plans and Specifications, and all Contract requirements. Design-Builder shall verify pertinent dimensions in the field prior to conducting a Working Plans Design Review. Design-Builder shall invite Agency to participate in a Review and Comment of Working Plans. Agency may invite Stakeholders to attend reviews of Working Plans. Design-Builder shall check, review, and certify Working Plans as specified herein, prior to their being issued for or used in construction. This includes Designer, Design Manager, and Design Quality Manager reviews, approvals, and certifications. Subsequent modifications must be processed through Design-Builder’s design review and approval/certification process and Agency Review and Comment prior to being utilized. As-Constructed Design Review Design-Builder shall submit the As-Constructed Plans and Design-Builder Specifications for each Design Unit to Agency for review and Acceptance within 30 Calendar Days of completion of the construction Work. As- Constructed Plans and Design-Builder Specifications shall thoroughly describe and identify every aspect of the Project as-constructed. Design-Builder shall make all corrections noted in Agency comments, if any, resulting from Agency’s review, and shall resubmit the corrected version to Agency PM for review and Acceptance. Table 10. Design reviews major features (ODOT 2007b, pp. 155–8,155–9).

Case Study—Project: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 113 2. Task force meetings. These meetings were held when specific problems had to be solved. As in the weekly meetings, these meetings were open to the agency and OBDP representatives. 3. Additional design reviews. In addition to the reviews of milestone design submittals, the agency could perform over-the-shoulder reviews to monitor and ensure consistency among plans and specifications. 4. Contractually required meetings. The contract (ODOT 2007c) specified several mandatory meetings and conferences. The characteristics of some mandatory meetings are described in Table 11. 3.4 Value Engineering To allow the proposal of original technical solutions during the pre- and post-award phases, ODOT established value engineering procedures. In particular, alternate technical concepts (ATC) were allowed in the pre-award phase, while cost-reduction proposals were allowed in the post-award phase. 3.4.1 Pre-Award Value Engineering: ATCs Although ODOT authorized the proposers to include approved ATCs in their proposals, ODOT retained the right to disclose any approved ATCs to all bidders before contract award. Nothing [ . . . ] shall restrict the Agency’s right at any time during the solicitation process to modify RFP requirements through the issuance of Addenda to accommodate authorization of a particular Alternate Design Mobilization Meeting Design-Builder’s Project Manager shall consult with Agency PM and shall arrange and lead a design mobilization prior to Design-Builder’s initiating Design Services. The agenda shall be developed in consultation between Agency PM and Design-Builder and prepared by Design- Builder, and shall include, at a minimum, all of the following: Design development and Design Review process; Description and breakdown of Design Units; Design development and Design Review schedules; and, Design Quality Management. Pre-Design Meeting A maximum of 15 Calendar Days prior to beginning Design Services, unless otherwise authorized in writing by Agency, Design-Builder shall meet with Agency at a time mutually agreed upon. Among other matters, the purpose of the meeting will be to establish the level of detail to be required for measuring progress with regard to those design Price Items referenced in DB General Provisions […]. Preconstruction Conference A maximum of 15 Calendar Days prior to beginning construction, unless otherwise authorized in writing by Agency, Design-Builder shall meet with Agency for a preconstruction conference at a time mutually agreed upon. Among other matters, the purpose of the meeting will be to establish the level of detail to be required for measuring progress with regard to construction Price Items, in accordance with the provisions of DB General Provisions […]. Before meeting with Agency for the preconstruction conference, Design-Builder shall hold a group Utility scheduling meeting with representatives from the Utility companies involved with the Project. Design-Builder shall incorporate the Utilities’ time needs into Design-Builder's Baseline Progress Schedule submitted at the preconstruction conference. Right-of-Way (ROW) Services Kick-Off Meeting Prior to initiating any ROW Work, Design-Builder’s ROW Project Manager will arrange for a kickoff meeting with all parties to the ROW activities of the Contract to discuss the services to be provided under the Contract. Table 11. Sample of mandatory meetings and conferences (ODOT, 2007c, pp. 180–214).

114 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects Technical Concept, if the Agency determines that such modification is in the best interests of the State (ODOT 2006, p. A–11). None of the proposers submitted any ATCs. 3.4.2 Post-Award Value Engineering: Cost-Reduction Proposals ODOT allowed the design-builder to modify plans, specifications, or other contract docu- ments to reduce the total cost of construction. In case a cost-reduction proposal was approved, the agency issued a change order and the savings were split evenly between the agency and the design-builders. 4. Interdependencies between Design and Other Activities 4.1 Environmental Permits Given that hundreds of bridges were planned to be replaced under the OTIA III Bridge Replacement Program, ODOT collaborated with state and federal agencies to develop a pro- grammatic environmental permitting process. This process was based on a set of environmental performance standards. If the design of a project respected these standards, the environmental permits were granted automatically. 4.2 Other Permits The design-builder was responsible for obtaining all construction-related permits and licenses, such as building construction permits, permits to cross or encroach on navigable streams, and permits to remove materials from or deposit materials into waterways (ODOT 2007d). 4.3 Right-of-Way (ROW) Although ODOT established in the RFP which property was necessary to acquire, no property acquisition was accomplished before contract award. OBDP was in charge of procuring the ROW. Thus, OBDP had to coordinate with property owners, perform the appraisal, negotiate, etc. 4.4 Utility Relocation Although ODOT performed a preliminary assessment and coordination to determine adjustments and relocations of utilities within the project limits (e.g., identify and contact the utility owners and determine which utility facilities likely were to conflict with the project activities), the design-builder fully was responsible for coordinating and performing all utility relocations. Design-Builder shall have the responsibility of coordinating the Project design and construc- tion with all Utilities that may be affected. Design-Builder shall be responsible for identifying, verifying the existence of, determining if conflicts exist, and resolving all Utility conflicts on the Project. Activities include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Identifying the full extent of Utilities in the Project Site 2. Verifying Utility owners and locations of Utilities 3. Locating Utilities and identifying potential conflicts not previously identified 4. Providing information to Agency to assist in acquiring additional ROW or easements, if necessary

Case Study—Project: Elk Creek—Hardscrabble Creek—Bundle 401 115 5. Coordinating and/or designing/constructing the Adjustment of Utilities and/or new Utilities [ . . . ] (ODOT, 2007e, pp. 174–4). 4.5 Public Involvement Per contractual agreement (ODOT 2007c), the design-builder was responsible to lead the public involvement effort and had to appoint a Public Information Manager. In particular, the design-builder organized public meetings and public service announcements, involved local schools, and provided ODOT and OBDP with information to update the program and project’s websites. References OBDP. (n.d.). Program—Project Delivery Methods. Retrieved from http://www.obdp.org/program/work/ method/(Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). ODOT. (n.d.-a). A History and Overview of OTIA. Oregon Transportation Investment Act. ODOT. (n.d.-b). Oregon Transportation Investment Act—OTIA III. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/ ODOT/HWY/OTIA/pages/repairing_bridges.aspx (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). ODOT. (n.d.-c). Oregon Transportation Investment Act. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ OTIA/Pages/index.aspx (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). ODOT. (n.d.-d). OTIA III State Bridge Delivery. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OTIA/ pages/odotbridgesee_team.aspx (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014) ODOT. (n.d.-e). OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program—Engineering Baseline Reports. Retrieved from http:// www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/otia/pages/bdu.aspx (April 11th, 2014). ODOT. (2005). Context Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions (CS3) Guidebook. ODOT. (2006). Oregon-38: Elk Creek to Hardscrabble Creek Design-Build Project—RFP Part I—Instructions To Proposers. ODOT. (2007a). D-B Section 154—Quality Program and Quality Plan Requirements. D-B General Provisions. ODOT. (2007b). D-B Section 155—Design Management and Design Quality Management. D-B General Provisions. ODOT. (2007c). D-B Section 180—Prosecution and Progress. D-B General Provisions. ODOT. (2007d). D-B Section 170—Legal Relations and Responsibilities. D-B General Provisions. ODOT. (2007e). D-B Section 174—Utilities, Railroads, and Right-of-Way (ROW). D-B General Provisions. Oregon State Legislature House Bill 5077—Budget Note #2 (2004).

116 1. Background In 1995, Salt Lake City was chosen as the host city of the 2002 Winter Olympics. This created the necessity to improve road and highway infrastructures in the Salt Lake City area to meet the increased mobility demand due to the Olympic Games. Among the selected improvement projects, the expansion and upgrade of Interstate 15 (I-15) in Salt Lake County was of particular importance. In fact, state officials asserted that I-15 would not have been able to sustain the combined load of routine traffic and increased traffic due to the Olympic Games in Salt Lake County (Federal Highway Administration 1998). Furthermore, I-15 in Salt Lake County had experienced considerable congestion since 1980; it was severely deteriorated, and its structures did not meet the current safety and seismic design standards (UDOT 2002). Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) began developing a program to reconstruct I-15 in 1984. The find- ings showed that with a traditional design-bid-build (DBB) procurement process, it would have taken eight to 10 years to expand and upgrade the roughly 17 miles of I-15 in Salt Lake County (Federal Highway Administration 1998; UDOT 2002). Thus, it was necessary to use a different delivery method to accomplish the project in time for the Olympic Games. In 1996, UDOT determined that design-build (D-B) was the most suitable delivery method to meet such dead- line. Since D-B was not permitted, the Utah State Legislature modified the procurement laws in 1996. In particular, the legislature allowed UDOT to award the contract using a best-value selection instead of a lowest-bid selection (Page 2012). The same year, UDOT began the process for the I-15 Corridor Reconstruction project (Figure 20) and, in April 1997, awarded the $1.6 billion contract to Wasatch Constructors (Table 12). In the procurement documents, UDOT required that the project be completed by October 2001. Wasatch Constructors committed to complete the project by July 2001 and was successful in respecting the schedule (UDOT 2002). The successful implementation of D-B for the I-15 Corridor Reconstruction project created a positive environment for the evaluation and adoption of other innovative contracting methods for highway projects. In particular, two innovative project delivery methods such as design- build and construction-manager-as-general-contractor (CMGC) have been institutionalized and used extensively by UDOT. As shown in Figure 21, significant funds constantly have been committed to D-B and CMGC projects over the years. The data also show that D-B and CMGC projects generally are bigger in scope than DBB projects. In fact, the average committed funds per year (i.e., committed funds/-number of projects) constantly are higher for D-B and CMGC projects than for DBB projects (Figures 22 and 23). Furthermore, UDOT created the office of Innovative Contracting and Project Controls within the Project Development Division (Figure 24). This office is in charge of leading the imple- mentation of innovative project delivery methods by developing guidelines and supporting the agency’s staff during the procurement and contract execution phases. Case Study—Program: Utah Department of Transportation

Case Study—Program: utah Department of Transportation 117 I-15 Corridor Reconstruction Limits 2 mi Map Data © 2013 Google Figure 20. I-15 Corridor reconstruction project map. Location Salt Lake County, UT Duration 1996–2001 Cost $1.6 billion Design- Builder Wasatch Constructors. A joint venture of Peter Kiewit Sons' Inc. (Omaha, NE), Granite Construction Company Inc. (Watsonville, CA), and Washington Construction Company (acquired by URS Corporation, San Francisco, CA) Scope Reconstruction of 16.2 miles of Interstate Construction of three lanes in both directions Replacement of 142 bridges Reconstruction of eight urban interchanges and three freeway-to-freeway connections Table 12. I-15 Corridor reconstruction project main characteristics. $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Co m m i ed Fu nd s ($ in m ill io ns ) Project Adver sement Year DBB D-B CM/GC Figure 21. Committed funds per year for DBB, D-B, and CMGC (adapted from Page 2012).

118 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects 71 106 128 223 136 100 70 5 3 12 9 6 6 04 9 3 11 8 3 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 N um be r of Pr oj ec ts Project Adversement Year DBB D-B CM/GC Figure 22. Number of projects per year for DBB, D-B, and CMGC. $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 A ve ra ge Co m m i ed Fu nd s ($ in m ill io ns ) Project Adversement Year DBB D-B CM/GC Figure 23. Average committed funds per year for DBB, D-B, and CMGC. Project Development Right of Way Environmental Preconstrucon Structural Construcon & Materials Ulies Construcon Innovave Contracng & Project Controls Materials Contract & Compliance Director Administrave Services Operaons Systems Planning & Programming Regional Offices Acquisions Property Manager Outdoor Adversing NEPA Cultural Resources Consultant Services Standards & Precon. Project Management Project Risk Management Bridge Management Geotechnical Figure 24. Simplified Utah Department of Transportation organizational chart.

Case Study—Program: utah Department of Transportation 119 1.1 Information Presented in the Case Study This case describes the programmatic effort of UDOT in implementing D-B for highway proj- ects. In addition to analyzing UDOT documentation about the program, four D-B projects were analyzed. 1. Pioneer Crossing, Lehi—15 American Fork Interchange (Table 13) 2. SR-154; Bangerter at 7800 S, 7000 S, and 6200 S (Table14) 3. I-15 at 11400 South Interchange (Table 15) 4. I-15; South Layton Interchange (Table 16) Location Lehi and American Fork, UT Duration 2008–10 Cost $175 million Design- Builder Kiewit-Clyde. A joint venture of W.W. Clyde & Co. (Springville, UT) and Kiewit Southwest Co. (Salt Lake City, UT) Scope Construction of a diverging diamond interchange at I-15 and American Fork Main Street Construction of a five-lane roadway in Saratoga Springs that switches to a seven-lane roadway in Lehi Construction of a bridge over the Jordan River Construction of a bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad Table 13. Pioneer Crossing, Lehi—15 American Fork Interchange project main characteristics. Location West Jordan, UT Duration 2010–12 Cost $40 million Design- Builder Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Co. (Draper, UT) Scope Construction of continuous flow intersections at 6200 South and 7000 South along the Bangerter Highway Construction of a separated-grade, single-point, urban interchange at 7800 South and Bangerter Table 14. SR-154; Bangerter at 7800 S, 7000 S, and 6200 S project main characteristics. Location South Jordan, UT Duration 2008–11 Cost $245 million Design- Builder A&W Highway Contractors. A joint venture of Ames Construction (Salt Lake City, UT) and Wadsworth Brothers Construction (Draper, UT). Scope Construction of single-point, urban interchanges at I-15 and 11400 South Reconstruction of the freeway from 10600 to 12300 South Reconstruction of 11400 South from I-15 to Bangerter Highway Construction of a traffic bridge and a pedestrian bridge over the Jordan River and a bridge over the existing railway Table 15. I-15 at 11400 South interchange project main characteristics. Location Layton City, UT Duration 2009–11 Cost $95 million Design- Builder Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Co. (Draper, UT) Scope Construction of single-point, urban interchanges at I-15 and South Layton Removal of an existing partial interchange Widening of 1.8 miles of I-15 Construction of a five-lane roadway from Fort Lane to Flint Street Table 16. I-15; South Layton interchange project main characteristics.

120 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects 2. UDOT Project Team UDOT developed several documents describing the procedure that should be followed in implementing D-B from the beginning of the process to the issue of the request for proposals (UDOT n.d., 2010a, 2011). The major steps of the process are shown in Figure 25. Although the steps are presented in a sequence, most steps cannot be considered concluded when the suc- cessive step begins. For instance, although the risk allocation matrix has to be populated in the early stages of the project development process, the project team should continue to update it during the process as soon as more information is available. In fact, project risk analysis can be considered concluded only after contract award. Among the identified project development steps, UDOT provides guidelines on how to assemble the project team. First, UDOT indicates that the project team should be consistent throughout the whole D-B process (i.e., from beginning of the process to project completion). Second, UDOT requires the project team to be led by a Project Manager (PM). The State of Utah is divided into four administrative regions. Each region is managed by a regional office (Figure 24), and the personnel of each regional office manage the administration, construc- tion, and maintenance of all road infrastructures located in their region. Therefore, to avoid conflicts with these pre-existing procedures, the PM generally is selected among the regional office’s personnel in charge of the project. Furthermore, to foster successful contract planning Assemble the Project Team Idenfy Expected Outcomes Develop Project Scope Analyze Project Risks Plan the Project Collect Base Data Determine Project Elements Condions and Design Requirements and Criteria Obtain Environmental Permits Perform Schedule Analysis Perform Funding Analysis Conduct Public Involvement Process Determine Quality Requirements for Materials Begin Coordinaon for Third Pares Agreements (e.g., Ulity Owners) Determine Goals and Values Populate the Project Risk Allocaon Matrix Design Issues Local Agency, Ulity, Railroad Issues Construcon Force Majeure/ Acts of God Differing Site Condions Compleon and Warranty Risk Categories in the Matrix: Conduct NEPA Geotechnical Condions Hydraulic Right-of-Way and Access Determinaon Traffic Noise Ulity Relocaons Pavement Condions Local Agencies Railroad Third Party / Adjacent Property Owners Community Relaons Beginning of the Process Issue of Request of Proposals Figure 25. D-B project development (from beginning to request for proposal).

Case Study—Program: utah Department of Transportation 121 and execution, UDOT specifies clearly that the PM should have enough experience to be capable of understanding correctly the project and the project delivery method. Third, the PM has to be supported by a team capable of managing the different technical areas of the projects (Fig- ure 26). In accordance with the project’s needs and characteristics, the team members can be from UDOT central office (e.g., innovative contracting), UDOT regional offices (e.g., design and construction staff), or external consultants. Finally, UDOT indicates that a dedicated project team should be established for large projects. 3. Project Design Management The following sections describe how the agency and design-builders generally organize and conduct design management functions. The first section describes the partnering effort between UDOT and design-builders. Later, the formal processes associated with design management are explained. Next, additional forms of communication and coordination adopted in support of design management functions are discussed. Finally, a brief overview of pre-award and post- award value engineering procedures is included. 3.1 Collaborative Partnering UDOT believes strongly in building an effective formal partnering relationship with design- builders. For instance, UDOT suggests “experience with formal partnering activities” as a selec- tion criterion for the request for qualifications (UDOT 2010a). The agency specifies two main strategies to obtain an effective partnering relationship such as co-location and adoption of a formal partnering process. Co-location. UDOT indicates that co-locating with the design-builder is likely to improve communication. Nevertheless, UDOT also indicates that co-location may not be cost effective on small projects (UDOT n.d.). Formal Partnering Process. Generally, UDOT requires the design-builder to organize, implement, and manage a formal partnering process involving all project participants. An exam- ple of the language and requirements used by the agency is provided in Table 17. 3.2 Formal Design Management Processes To ensure design package quality and compliance with the contractual document require- ments, the agency requires the design-builder to develop a comprehensive quality program, participates in the design-builder design reviews, and performs design reviews. 3.2.1 Quality Management Plan The Quality Management Plan (QMP) is the document detailing all quality program proce- dures adopted by design-builders. UDOT requires the design-builders to submit the QMP for Project Manager Materials Construcon Maintenance Innovave Contracng Design Roadway Hydraulics Environmental Ulies Geotech Structures Right of way Figure 26. Typical project team technical areas.

122 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects approval after contract award and lists several requirements for the development of the QMP in the contractual documents. Examples of the QMP requirements are provided in Table 18. 3.2.2 Design Reviews UDOT defines different types of design reviews such as interim oversight reviews, milestone reviews, release for construction (RFC) reviews, and completed design review. Figure 27 shows when these reviews take place during the design development process. The typical characteristics of these reviews are presented in the following paragraphs. Interim oversight reviews. As shown in Figure 28, these reviews can take place at any level of design (of a design package). These reviews can be requested either by the design-builder or the agency. Although interim oversight reviews are conducted “using an over–the-shoulder technique with the intent of minimizing disruption of ongoing design Work” (UDOT 2010c pp. 3–15), they may follow a formal review process (Figure 28). First, the documents to be reviewed (e.g., progress prints, computer images, draft documents, working calculations, draft specifications or reports) are submitted to the agency and, if necessary, other interested stakeholders. Second, the project stakeholders review the documents and provide comments within a certain number of days (e.g., seven). Finally, after inviting the agency to attend the review, the design quality manager (DQM) conducts the review with the involved design-builder’s design personnel. Milestone reviews. The agency requires the design-builder to hold these reviews for each design package at 30% and 60% design complete (Figure 27) “to determine whether the Contract requirements and design criteria are being followed and that QC/QA activities are following the approved QMP” (UDOT 2010c pp. 3–15). These reviews follow a formal procedure (Figure 29). First, the design package is submitted to the agency and, if necessary, other interested stakehold- ers. The design package must include, “as a minimum, design drawings, calculations (as appro- priate), reports, specifications, geotechnical data, environmental requirements, and any other relevant design information” (UDOT 2010c pp. 3–15). Second, the project stakeholders review the documents and provide comments within a certain number of days (e.g., ten). Third, after A. The Design-builder shall implement a facilitated partnering program, and execute it in conjunction with the Subcontractors, design consultants, design subconsultants, and the Department. This approach uses the strengths of each organization to identify and achieve mutual goals. Partnering does not change the legal relationship of the parties or modify the Contract, and does not relieve either party from any of the terms of the Contract. Nor does it create a legal partnership between the parties. Rather, it is intended to denote a cooperative collaboration between the parties to efficiently accomplish the Work and complete the Contract. B. Implement partnering in accordance with the UDOT and Utah AGC Partnering Field Guide. Refer to http://www.udot.utah.gov/go/standardsreferences: 1. Contact the Department within 30 days of Notice of Award and before the pre-Work conference to implement a third party facilitated partnering initiative; 2. The Design-builder and Department select a facilitator for the meeting and develop the attendees list, agenda, duration, and location of a partnering workshop; 3. Partnering will be held for both design and construction throughout the project. Review survey responses and results monthly with the Engineer; and 4. Perform a design lessons learned session within two weeks of the final drawings being released for construction. C. Share any costs equally with the Department to accomplish partnering except that each shall pay full costs associated with its staff attending partnering sessions. D. Follow-up workshops may be held as agreed by the Design-builder and the Department. E. Hold a weekly Executive Partnering meeting with the Department’s Project Manager and Resident Engineer. This weekly meeting will begin at NTP and end at Contract Completion. Table 17. Partnering requirements (UDOT 2010b pp. 2–41, 2–42).

Case Study—Program: utah Department of Transportation 123 Section Requirement General The QMP shall delineate how the Design-builder will ensure that all disciplines, aspects, and elements of the Work will comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents and that all materials incorporated into the Work will perform satisfactorily for the purpose intended. The Design- builder may use any nationally accepted format and process for the QMP (p. 3- 1). Department Contract Administration All Department Contract Administration responsibilities are either explicitly or inherently distributed to the applicable section of this Part 3 (Quality Program). The QMP shall define how these Department responsibilities are integrated to assure and document their execution. At its discretion, the Department may utilize requirements of the Design-builder to fulfill a number of activities outlined in the Construction Manual of Instruction (p. 3-4). Quality Management Plan Contents The QMP shall address Project elements, organized in the following sections: 1. Management; 2. Key Staffing Positions; 3. Administration; 4. Progress Payment; 5. Investigations, Inspections, and Testing; 6. Design; 7. Construction; 8. Environmental Monitoring and Compliance; and 9. Maintenance of Public and Private Facilities (pp. 3-4, 3-5). Construction Quality Manager (CQM) The QMP shall name the CQM, who will be responsible for the quality of the construction elements of the Project (p. 3-6). Design Quality Manager (DQM) The QMP shall name the DQM, who shall be responsible for the quality of the design elements of the Project (p. 3-6). Design Requirements In general, Section 6 (Design) of the QMP shall describe design quality management practices and processes that are intended to: 1. Place responsibility for design quality on the Design-builder; 2. Ensure that Work is designed and built in accordance with the Contract; 3. Ensure that all design documents are prepared in accordance with generally accepted design and engineering practices and meet all the requirements of the Contract; and 4. Allow the Department to fulfill its responsibility of exercising due diligence in overseeing the design process and design products (p. 3-12). Table 18. Quality management plan (QMP) contractual requirements (UDOT 2010c). DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 30% Milestone Review Design Package Completed Interim Oversight Reviews Interim Oversight Reviews Interim Oversight Reviews 60% Milestone Review 0% Release-for- Construc‚on Review Project Design Completed Completed Design Review Figure 27. Design reviews during design development. Documents are submied to the project stakeholders The project stakeholders review the document and provide comments The Design Quality Manager conducts the design review Figure 28. Design interim oversight review formal process.

124 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects inviting the agency to attend the review, the DQM conducts the review with the involved design- builder personnel. Fourth, the DQM compiles and distributes among the review participants the review minutes and a comment resolution form. Finally, a comment resolution meeting is held with the agency to address and resolve all the comments. Release for construction reviews. The RFC reviews are performed at the end of the design package development. RFC reviews follow a formal procedure similar to the one implemented for milestone reviews. Completed design review. The completed design review is performed when the design of the entire project is complete. In this review, the DQM reviews “the completed design as defined by the scope of work” (UDOT 2010c pp. 3–16). In particular, the DQM must verify that: 1. All plans, reports, and specifications are signed and stamped by the Engineer-in-Responsible- Charge. 2. All comments and problems are addressed and resolved. Regardless of the type of review, revisions and comments provided by the agency personnel also may contain constructability considerations. 3.3 Other Forms of Communication and Coordination In addition to participating in the design reviews, the agency and the design-builder can communicate during the following times: 1. Informal face-to-face meetings, electronic communications, and phone calls. The design- builder’s construction and design personnel could communicate directly with the agency through face-to-face meetings, emails, and phone calls. Furthermore, UDOT generally requires the design-builders to utilize a Web application platform to manage all electronic documentation. 2. Meetings. Per contractual agreement, design-builders have to “participate in monthly prog- ress meetings or meetings held at the request of the Department to review and discuss the status of the project” (UDOT 2010b pp. 2–16). These meetings are a venue to identify, discuss, and resolve any deviation from the expected schedule. In addition to the progress meetings, design-builders usually invite the agency to weekly design management meetings and task force meetings. Design management meetings can either focus on a single design discipline or involve all design leads. Task force meetings are a venue to discuss and resolve specific problems and, therefore, are not held on a regular basis. 3.4 Value Engineering To allow and foster the proposal of original technical solutions during the pre- and post- award phases, UDOT implements value engineering procedures. In particular, ATC are allowed Design package is submied to the project stakeholders The project stakeholders review the design package and provide comments The Design Quality Manager conducts the design review The Design Quality Manager prepares and distributes the comment resoluon forms A comment resoluon meeng is held to address all the comments Figure 29. Milestone review formal process.

Case Study—Program: utah Department of Transportation 125 in the pre-award phase, while value engineering change proposals (VECP) are allowed in the post-award phase. 3.4.1 Pre-Award Value Engineering: Alternative Technical Concepts UDOT defines ATCs as deviations from the contractual documents that “result in perfor- mance and quality of the end product that is equal to or better than the performance and quality of the end product absent the deviation, as determined by the Department in its sole discretion” (UDOT 2008 p. ITP–17). Furthermore, UDOT clarifies that concepts cannot be considered ATCs if they require any of the following: 1. A reduction in project scope, performance, or reliability. 2. The addition of a separate department project to the contract (such as expansion of the scope of the project to include additional roadways). 3. An increase in the amount of time required for substantial completion (UDOT 2008 p. ITP–17). Proposed ATCs are discussed during one-on-one meetings and the agency can provide only one of the following statements to a proposed ATC: 1. The ATC is acceptable for inclusion in the proposal. 2. The ATC is not acceptable for inclusion in the proposal. 3. The ATC is not acceptable in its present form, but may be acceptable upon the satisfaction, in the Department’s sole discretion, of certain identified conditions which must be met or clarifications or modifications that must be made. 4. The submittal does not qualify as an ATC but may be included in proposer’s proposal because it appears to be within the requirements of the RFP (UDOT 2008 p. ITP–20). Although ATCs are confidential until contract award, the agency states that If the Department determines, based on a proposed ATC or otherwise, that the RFP contains an error, ambiguity, or mistake, the Department reserves the right to modify the RFP to correct the error, ambiguity, or mistake, regardless of any impact on a proposed ATC (UDOT 2008 p. ITP–19). Furthermore, if the agency approves an ATC requiring additional properties, the design- builder will retain full responsibility for obtaining and paying for the additional properties. 3.4.2 Post-Award Value Engineering: Value Engineering Change Proposals UDOT encourages design-builders to submit VECPs by sharing equally the resulting savings. Nevertheless, the agency usually does not reimburse the costs incurred by the design-builder in developing, designing, and implementing the VECP. Furthermore, the agency indicates the fol- lowing requirements for VECPs: 1. VECPs apply only to the current contract and become property of the department regardless of their approval. 2. The department only considers VECPs that meet the following conditions: a. Impose no restrictions on use or disclosure. b. The department may duplicate or disclose any data necessary to use the VECP. c. The department may apply a VECP for general use on other projects it administers with- out obligation to the design-builder. 3. This provision does not deny rights provided by law with respect to patented materials or processes. 4. Use only proven features that have been employed under similar conditions or projects acceptable to the department (UDOT 2010c pp. 2–49).

126 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects 4. Interdependencies Between Design and Other Activities 4.1 Environmental Permits UDOT is responsible for obtaining the environmental permits for permanent construction elements such as environmental studies and stream alteration permits. Furthermore, UDOT is in charge of conducting the NEPA process and obtaining the record of decision. Design-builders may be required to support the agency by providing information. If the agency is in charge of a permit that is related to tasks and/or activities under the design-builder’s responsibility, the design-builder will have to prepare the necessary permit application documents and submit them to the agency for approval. 4.2 Other Permits Design-builders are responsible for obtaining all construction-related permits, such as per- mits for construction, maintenance, and removal of temporary roadways and permits from railroad companies for conduit crossings. 4.3 Right-of-Way (ROW) UDOT is responsible for managing the ROW procedures during the pre- and post-award phases. If possible (e.g., small projects), the agency identifies and purchases all properties prior to contract award. 4.4 Utility Relocation If possible, UDOT coordinates with the utility owners to relocate all affected facilities prior to contract award. If it is not possible to relocate the utilities prior to contract award, or it is viable and effective to include such relocations in the scope of work, UDOT coordinates with the utility owners to obtain a master utility agreement. Then design-builders are responsible to coordinate with the utility owners to obtain the supplemental utility agreements and manage the utility relocation activities. 4.5 Public Involvement Since the public holds the agency accountable for long-term project outcomes and short-term construction activity consequences (e.g., traffic delays), UDOT retains ultimate responsibility for public involvement and information (UDOT 2010a). Therefore, UDOT leads the public involvement and information efforts and requires the design-builders to support its efforts. For instance, design-builders must: 1. Provide information about the project progress and effects on traffic. 2. Address concerns of road users, local businesses, and residents. 3. Provide material to update projects’ websites. References Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). “I-15 Corridor Reconstruction.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_ profiles/ut_i15_corridor.htm (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). Federal Highway Administration. (1998). Review of Interstate 15 (I-15) Reconstruction Project in Utah—Report No. TR-1999-028.

Case Study—Program: utah Department of Transportation 127 Federal Highway Administration. (2006). “I-15 Reconstruction—Salt Lake City, UT.” Office of Operations: 21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technologies, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ mitig_traf_cong/slc_case.htm (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). Page, M. (2012). “UDOT’s Innovative Contracting Methods.” WASHTO 2012, Colorado Springs, CO. UDOT. (n.d.). “I-15 and Utah Transportation History.” http://www.i15core.utah.gov/timeline/ (Last Accessed April 11th, 2014). UDOT. (n.d.). “Instructions for Project Managers for D-B.” UDOT. (n.d.). “Typical Scope of Work Items for Consultant RFP Development.” UDOT. (2002). I-15 Corridor Reconstruction Project Design/Build Evaluation Final Report—Report No. UT- 02.16. UDOT. (2008). “Instruction to Proposers (ITP).” Request for Proposals—Pioneer Crossing, Lehi, I-15 American Fork Interchange. UDOT. (2009). “Part Three: Design Requirements—Performance Specifications.” I-15 CORE Project No. MP- I15-6(178)245. UDOT. (2010a). Approach to D-B Projects. UDOT. (2010b). “Contract Documents Part 2: General Provisions.” SR-154; Bangerter at 7800 S, 7000 S, and 6200 S. UDOT. (2010c). “Contract Documents Part 3: Quality Program.” Request for Proposals—SR-154; Bangerter at 7800 S, 7000 S, and 6200 S. UDOT. (2011). Best Value D-B Selection—Manual of Instruction.

128 Background The Alaskan Way Viaduct is a two-mile-long, double-decked, elevated section of State High- way SR 99 (Figure 30). The Alaskan Way Viaduct, completed in 1953, runs west of Seattle down- town along the Elliot Bay waterfront from South Nevada Street to Belltown Battery Tunnel (Figure 31). Second only to Interstate 5, the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a major north-south cor- ridor through downtown Seattle that carries about 110,000 vehicles per day (WSDOT 2009). In 1989, a structure similar to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the Cypress Street Viaduct (Oakland, CA), collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake (6.9 moment magnitude). To address the numerous concerns about the Alaskan Way Viaduct seismic vulnerability, WSDOT thoroughly investigated the Alaskan Way Viaduct conditions and determined that the viaduct was likely to be severely damaged and collapse in a design-level earthquake (Kramer and Eberhard 1995). The same report defined a design-level earthquake as one with “design-level motions with a 10% probability of exceedance for an exposure period of 50 years” (Kramer and Eberhard 1995 p. 9). Whereas this report forecast that such a seismic event is likely to occur once every 475 years, on February 28, 2001, the Nisqually earthquake (6.8 moment magnitude) severely damaged vari- ous elements of the viaduct, including joints and columns (WSDOT 2009). Moreover, concerns about the Alaskan Way Seawall structural stability also were raised due to the severe viaduct foundation settlement that occurred after the earthquake. Although the facility was repaired and reopened (Figure 32), WSDOT determined that retro- fitting the facility to minimize its seismic vulnerability was not cost effective. Concurrent inspec- tions of the Alaskan Way Seawall also found signs of significant deterioration despite regular maintenance. Therefore, in late 2001, WSDOT launched the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program (Figure 33). As a first step, numerous design concepts were taken into consideration and discussed with the public. Ten goals were developed to guide the selection of viable concepts (Table 19). In particular, all the concepts had to meet the necessary seismic design standards (i.e., goal one) to be considered viable. In 2002, 76 viaduct replacement and seven seawall replacement concepts were selected and further analyzed. In 2004, five build alternatives with a no build alter- native (Table 20) were finalized and included in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) (Sheridan 2004). At the end of 2004, federal, state, and city stakeholders streamlined the initial list by eliminating the Aerial, Bypass Tunnel, and Surface alternatives. They also suggested the Tunnel alternative as preferred with the Rebuild listed “as a contingency plan in case the agen- cies fall short of raising the estimated $3.4 billion to $4 billion for the tunnel” (Steakley 2004). At that time, a cut-and-cover tunnel along the waterfront was the preferred technical solution. In 2005, the program goals were modified to incorporate safety and access improvements in the Case Study—Project: SR 99 Tunnel (Alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation

Case Study—Project: Sr 99 Tunnel (alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation 129 area north of the Battery Street Tunnel (WSDOT 2009). Thus, the following three alternatives were included in a supplemental draft EIS published in 2006: • Cut-and-cover tunnel alternative—A double-decked, cut-and-cover tunnel (three lanes per direction) built parallel to the Alaskan Way Viaduct • Elevated structure alternative—A modified rebuild alternative • No build alternative Figure 30. The Alaskan Way Viaduct (Credit: WSDOT). Figure 31. Map of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (Credit: WSDOT).

130 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects In 2007, the City of Seattle held an advisory ballot to allow citizens to provide input on the preferred alternative between an elevated alternative and a hybrid alternative with a cut-and- cover tunnel and surface roads. Seattle citizens rejected both alternatives. After the advisory ballot, program proponents decided to solve critical safety and mobility issues at the north and south ends of the Alaskan Way Viaduct by initiating a sub-program called Move Forward. The main projects under the Move Forward sub-program were (WSDOT 2009): • Repair of columns in the Pioneer Square area; • Relocation of electrical line in the viaduct’s south end; Figure 32. WSDOT crews repairing earthquake damage on the viaduct in April 2001 (Credit: WSDOT). 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Nisqually Earthquake 76 viaduct replacement and seven seawall replacement concepts are selected A Dra Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates 5 build alternaves and a no-build alternave Program proponents idenfy a cut-and-cover tunnel alternave as the first preferred alternave and an elevated structure as the second preferred alternave A Supplemental Dra EIS evaluates a cut-and-cover tunnel alternave, an elevated structure alternave, and a no-build alternave Seale Cizens vote down (advisory vote) an elevated alternave and a cut-and-cover surface hybrid alternave WSDOT, King County, and City of Seale agree on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a single bored tunnel The SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternave Design-Build Project Request for Proposal is released Move Forward sub- program begins Figure 33. Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement program timeline.

Case Study—Project: Sr 99 Tunnel (alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation 131 Goal Number Goal Description 1 An alternative must provide facilities that meet current seismic design standards. 2 An alternative must maintain the current transportation functions of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor. 3 An alternative should not further degrade the operation of other major transportation facilities. 4 An alternative should improve traffic safety. 5 An alternative should maintain regional transportation linkages. 6 An alternative should support bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and mobility. 7 An alternative should be compatible with local, express, and high-capacity transit. 8 An alternative should support land use and shoreline plans and policies pertaining to development of the downtown Seattle waterfront. 9 An alternative should support improved habitat for fish and wildlife along the Alaskan Way Seawall. 10 An alternative should rely on proven construction methods, minimize construction duration, and promote effective traffic management during construction. Table 19. Goals for screening the proposed concepts (WSDOT 2009). Alternative Description Rebuild An at-grade roadway from S. Holgate Street to S. King Street Reconstruction of the viaduct from S. King Street to the Battery Street Tunnel Aerial A double-level aerial structure from S. Holgate Street to the Battery Street Tunnel Tunnel An at-grade roadway from S. Holgate Street to S. King Street A tunnel with three lanes in each direction with portals in S. King Street, Pike Street, and Alaskan Way north of Pine Street An aerial structure from Pike Street to the Battery Street Tunnel Bypass Tunnel An at-grade roadway from S. Holgate Street to S. King Street A tunnel with two lanes in each direction with portals in S. King Street and Pike Street Widening of Alaskan Way to carry the additional traffic Surface An at-grade roadway with three lanes in each direction from S. Holgate Street to S. Atlantic Street An at-grade roadway with two lanes in each direction from S. Atlantic Street to Yesler Way An at-grade roadway with one lane in each direction and a center left-turn lane from Yesler Way to Pike Street An aerial structure from Pike Street to the Battery Street Tunnel No Build Scenario 1—Continued operation of the viaduct and seawall with continued maintenance Scenario 2—Sudden unplanned loss of the facilities but without major collapse or injury Scenario 3—Catastrophic failure and collapse of viaduct and/or seawall Table 20. Draft environmental impact statement build alternatives (Sheridan 2004).

132 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects • Maintenance and repair of the Battery Street Tunnel; and, • Replacement of the viaduct between S. Holgate Street and S. King Street (south end). In January 2009, WSDOT, King County, and the City of Seattle agreed on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a single bored tunnel under downtown Seattle, the SR 99 tunnel (Figure 34). WSDOT selected design-build to deliver this project due to its uniqueness, size, technical com- plexities, and schedule. Design-build allowed the agency to solicit original technical solutions while providing for a fast-tracked delivery schedule. In addition to the tunnel project, WSDOT, King County, the City of Seattle, and the Port of Seattle planned several street, transit, seawall, and waterfront betterment projects (Figure 35). All of these projects were included in the scope of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program. Table 21 includes a breakdown of the program budget. Figure 34. Map of the SR 99 tunnel (Credit: WSDOT). Figure 35. Map of the major projects for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program (Credit: WSDOT).

Case Study—Project: Sr 99 Tunnel (alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation 133 SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative In October 2009, WSDOT began the procurement process by holding a request for qualifica- tions (RFQ) voluntary meeting. At the end of 2009, WSDOT shortlisted three proposers, which were invited to submit a proposal in response to the request for proposals (RFP) document issued in May 2010. However, only two teams submitted a proposal by the due date. In Decem- ber 2010, Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP) was awarded the contract to build the SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative for more than $1 billion. According to the contractual agreement, STP will build the approximately two-mile-long tun- nel with a 57.5-foot earth pressure balance (EPB) boring machine. The new SR 99 tunnel is sized to accommodate a two-lane, double-decked structure (Figure 36) to support northbound and southbound traffic. The route of the new SR 99 tunnel starts at the south end stadium district, extends along Alaskan Way, travels to the northeast in the vicinity of Yesler Street, travels north- erly along 1st Avenue, and then continues on a northeast route toward 6th and Mercer, where it ultimately connects to existing SR 99 just north of the Battery Street Tunnel entrance. This route traverses almost two miles underneath a variety of streets and building and structure founda- tions. As shown in Figure 37, WSDOT obtained the EIS record of decision (ROD) after contract award. Since final design and construction activities cannot be performed before obtaining the ROD, WSDOT had to issue two notices to proceed (NTP). The first NTP allowed STP to per- form the preliminary design while WSDOT was waiting for the ROD to issue the second NTP Design, Management, or Construction Activities Budget (million) WSDOT (Total Budget $3.2 billion) Program management $75.0 Environmental impact statements (EIS), right-of-way acquisitions, and design costs $173.7 Moving Forward projects: repair of columns in the Pioneer Square area; relocation of electrical line in the viaduct’s south end; maintenance and repair of the Battery Street Tunnel; construction mitigation to transit service and travel time monitoring and demand management services; and replacement of the viaduct between S. Holgate Street and S. King Street (south end). $551.3 SR 99 Tunnel Project. This project consists of several sub- projects: SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative (i.e., SR 99 tunnel); north end; south end; and South Atlantic Street Overpass $2,034.4 Central Waterfront Construction Mitigation $30.0 New Alaskan Way with connections to Elliott and Western Avenues; Alaskan Way Viaduct removal; and Battery Street Tunnel decommissioning $290.0 City of Seattle (Total Budget $1.4 billion) Phase 1: Elliot Bay Seawall Project $300.0 Mercer Corridor Project $260.0 South Spokane Street Viaduct Widening Project $162.0 Waterfront Seattle $480.0 Utility relocation $226.0 King County (Total Budget $190 million) Transit investments $190.0 Note: King County was in charge of administering additional $32 million provided by WSDOT for construction mitigation measures to transit services as part of the Moving Forward projects. Port of Seattle (Total Budget $53.6 million) East Marginal Way Grade Separation $53.6 Table 21. Alaskan Way Viaduct and seawall replacement program design, management, and construction activities.

134 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects Figure 36. SR 99 tunnel design concept (Credit: WSDOT). SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternave contract awarded Note to Proceed (NTP) 1 (preliminary design) Record of Decision NTP 2 (final design and construcon) Tunnel boring machine delivered Tunnel boring begins Tunnel boring complete Tunnel substanal compleon Tunnel boring machine construcon begins in Japan Tunnel launch pit construcon begins Tunnel portal construcon begins Tunnel opens to traffic 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 37. SR 99 bored tunnel alternative timeline. final design and construction. An analysis of the project timeline in Figure 37 shows that the project schedule is extremely compressed with the design and construction phases expected to last only 5 years, from the beginning of 2011 to the end of 2015. Project Partners WSDOT Within the Alaskan Way Viaduct Program, WSDOT established a project management team in charge of the SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative project (Figure 38). The project management team consists of a design engineer, who is the leader of the design phase; a geotechnical and utility

Case Study—Project: Sr 99 Tunnel (alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation 135 engineer; an environmental manager; a tunnel construction engineer; a contract administrator engineer; and a program manager. As shown in Figure 39, each team member is in charge of one or more disciplines. Moreover, WSDOT does not have in-house expertise to effectively manage all the issues related to the construction of a tunnel. Therefore, the agency decided to hire numerous external consultants. In particular, while the team members are WSDOT employees with the exception of the program manager, only 50% of the support staff consists of WSDOT employees. Furthermore, to mitigate the numerous risks associated with the project, WSDOT utilizes the services of a strategic technical advisory team (STAT). The STAT is techni- cally oriented and provides oversight and support on technical challenges related to the tunnel and project construction. This team supported development of the RFP, procurement and selec- tion activities, and continued support of the project during the design review and construction phases. In addition, a 2011 budget proviso legislation required that an expert review panel be AWV Program Environmental Manager AWV Program Administrator AWV Deputy Program Administrator AWV Program Design Engineer Geotechnical & Ulity Engineer Tunnel Construcon Engineer Contract Administraon Engineer Project Manager Public Informaon (media & press) Civil Design Review & Integraon System Review & Integraon Bridge and Structures North Portal Area STAT team Ulies Geotechnical Deformaon Migaon (building/ structures/ ulies) Construcon Oversight & Integraon Bored Tunnel & TBM Contract Administraon Program Management Environmental• • • • • • • • • • •• Project Management Team Disciplines WSDOT Consultant LEGEND Figure 38. WSDOT Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV) organization chart. Execuve Commiee Project Manager Deputy Project Manager Safety Manager Environmental Manager Public Informaon Specialist Project Quality Manager Construcon Managers TBM & Equipment Superintendent Tunnel Superintendent General Superintendent Project Engineer Project Control Manager Human Resources Manager Financial Administraon Manager Commercial Manager Schedule Engineers Cost Engineer Engineering Manager Design Director Design Quality Control Manager Deputy Design Director Design Manager Design Coordinator Civil Design Manager Building Design ManagerStructures Design Manager System Design ManagerTunnel Design Manager Geotechnical Managers Materials Approval Engineer Design Quality Assurance Manager Contrucon Quality Assurance ManagerProject Engineer Construcon Engineer Contract Engineer Assistant Office EngineerStructures Engineer Traffic Control ManagerElectrical Coordinator Tunnel Systems ManagerGeotechnical Manager STP HNTB LEGEND Intecsa-Inarsa Other Consultants Figure 39. STP organization chart.

136 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects convened to evaluate the financial feasibility of the overall program. The expert review panel has performed extensive reviews of the program, including overall program management, risk management, budget and contingency plans, availability of financial resources, stakeholder and partner agency relationships and interfaces, and mitigation of public and political issues. Seattle Tunnel Partners STP is a joint venture of Dragados USA (55%) and Tutor Perini Corporation (45%). STP con- tracted out the design to HNTB Corporation and Intecsa-Inarsa. In particular, as shown in Fig- ure 39, HNTB Corporation leads the overall design while Intecsa-Inarsa leads the tunnel design. Moreover, STP selected Hitachi Zosen Corporation to design and manufacture the tunnel boring machine and Frank Coluccio Construction, Malcolm Construction, and JH Kelly Construction as local subcontractors. Project Design Management The following sections describe how the agency and the design-builder have organized and conducted design management functions on this unique project. The first section describes the partnering effort between WSDOT and STP that was enacted to facilitate collaboration among parties. Later, we explain formal processes associated with design management, including how design packages were reviewed internally by STP and later reviewed and approved by WSDOT and other project stakeholders. Next, we discuss additional forms of communication and coordination adopted in support of design management functions (beyond the formal submittal and review process). Lastly, a brief overview of pre-award and post-award value engineering procedures is included. Collaborative Partnering To foster a successful project completion, minimize issues and disputes among project par- ticipants, and better manage overall risk, WSDOT relies on a collaborative partnering work relationship among project participants. “WSDOT believes that Project objectives can be best achieved through a collaboration that promotes and facilitates strategic planning, design, con- struction and commissioning of the Project” (WSDOT 2012 p. 121). In particular, the contract requires that the parties: • Participate in a team building workshop conducted by a third party facilitator; • Coordinate respective roles, responsibilities, and expertise; and • Foster open communications, non-adversarial interactions, and fair and transparent decision making and idea sharing. Formal Design Management Processes Design Review Milestones Per contractual agreement, STP needs to prepare three design submittals for each design pack- age. The whole design management process was developed around these three milestones (see Table 22) and included two stages of reviews: (1) an internal review that was described in the STP Design Quality Management Plan, and (2) a review by WSDOT and other project stake- holders, including the City of Seattle and its offices.

Case Study—Project: Sr 99 Tunnel (alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation 137 Design-Builder Internal Design Review STP (design-builder) planned a detailed internal procedure to ensure the quality of the design packages. The basic design-builder internal design review process is shown in Figure 40. The design review steps are described in the following paragraphs. 1. Generate the design package. STP design team (coordinated by HNTB) prepares the plans, specifications, calculations, reports, and other design documents. To ensure effective com- munication and coordination, weekly task force meetings are held. 2. Perform quality control (QC). QC reviews are performed to verify that the generated docu- ments are in conformance with the design criteria and standards and the contract. QC reviews consist of four steps (Figure 41): • Check—By validating the assumptions, calculations, specifications, drawings, and details in conformance with the design QC procedures, the checker (i.e., a peer of the designer or originator of the document) reviews the documents and determines whether revisions are required. Submittal Description Design Definition Since WSDOT provided concept plans at maximum 30% design completion for the different design disciplines in the RFPs, the intent of this submittal is to bring all the design disciplines at 30% design completion to confirm that the initial design approach is consistent with the contract requirements Preliminary Design The intent of this submittal is twofold. First, it supports the agency in completing the permitting process. Second, it allows project stakeholders (e.g., affected local government and utilities) to review “the construction documents in order to ensure that the design is progressing appropriately and proceeding in the right direction; the plans reflect the requirements for construction; and there are no fatal flaws within a given discipline or between disciplines” (STP 2012 p. 18). Final Design This submittal consists of plans and specifications at 100% design completion. After approval, the ready for construction (RFC) design package is prepared. Table 22. Design submittals. Generate the design package Quality Control Perform Interdisciplinary and Constructability Reviews Revise the Design Package Quality Control Perform QA Audit Is QA Audit sasfactory? No Submit the design package to WSDOT Yes Start Finish Figure 40. Design- builder internal design review flowchart. Check Are revisions required?Yes Start Finish No Back Check Update/Correcon Verificaon Figure 41. Design-builder quality control review flowchart.

138 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects • Back Check—After reviewing the checker revisions, the back checker (typically the designer or originator of the document) accepts the agreed-upon revisions and discusses and resolves revisions not agreed upon. • Update/Correction—In accordance with the revisions, the corrector (typically a drafter involved in originating the document) updates and corrects the documents. • Verification—The verifier (typically either the checker or the back checker) verifies the completeness and correctness of the corrections/updates. 3. Perform the interdisciplinary and constructability reviews. The interdisciplinary reviews are performed to ensure that design responsibilities and design details are being coordinated effectively between and within disciplines. In particular, the reviewers check the documents to detect interferences and incompatibilities among design disciplines. The constructability reviews are performed by the design-builder to minimize and control risks regarding “toler- ances, site access and restrictions, traffic handling during construction, economics of design and materials, availability of materials, construction equipment and required labor, consis- tency with environmental permit requirements, interferences and conflicts among construc- tion disciplines, completeness, and prudent construction practices” (STP 2012 p. 26—Att.A). 4. Revise the design package. Comments and revisions generated during the interdisciplinary and constructability reviews (or during the quality assurance audit) are incorporated in the documents and, if necessary, a comment resolution meeting can be held to further discuss and resolve comments and revisions. 5. Perform the quality assurance (QA) audit. The design quality assurance manager performs an audit to verify that the QC procedures have been followed. Moreover, the design quality assurance manager verifies that previous comments and revisions have been correctly incor- porated into the documents. 6. Submit the design package to WSDOT. After completion of the QA audit, the design package is submitted to the project stakeholders (e.g., WSDOT, the City of Seattle, utility companies). Agency’s and Other Project Stakeholders’ Design Review After a design package has been released by STP, it is reviewed by WSDOT and, if necessary, by other project stakeholders (Table 23). The design review procedures adopted by WSDOT are described in the following paragraphs. Reviewer Role WSDOT Review plans for conformance with the discipline criteria and contract requirements Local governments (e.g., the City of Seattle) Review plans for conformance with respective standards and other issues of local government concern Seattle Fire Department Review plans for conformance with tunnel safety standards and requirements Table 23. Role of the project stakeholders in reviewing design packages (adapted from STP, 2012).

Case Study—Project: Sr 99 Tunnel (alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation 139 To allow effective WSDOT coordination in reviewing the design submittals, the submittals are incorporated into the project schedule. Moreover, regardless of the dimension of the design pack- age under review, it is contractually required that WSDOT completes the design review within 14 days. Nevertheless, to limit WSDOT workload, “WSDOT reserves the right to extend the review time by up to seven calendar days for submittals that are received between November 15th and January 1st, and for submittals with overlapping review periods” (STP 2012 p. 24). If WSDOT does not provide reviews and comments within 14 days for a design package, STP can assume that there are no reviews or comments on the design package. In addition, a design review can be accelerated up to five days if requested by STP. Generally, an accelerated review is requested for design changes originating from the field that have to be promptly addressed. The main steps for a typical WSDOT design review are as follows: • The program design engineer receives the design package and distributes it among the other project management team members. • The project management team members provide reviews and comments (typically 10 days for the standard review process) to the program design engineer. • The program design engineer compiles and consolidates the reviews and comments into the comment summary and the resolution form to avoid duplicate or conflicting comments (typi- cally three days for the standard review process). Furthermore, the program design engineer verifies that the comments are neither directive nor shift any contractually assigned risk back to the agency. • The program design engineer submits the compiled reviews and comments to STP (typically one day). • STP incorporates the comments and reviews in the design package and, if necessary, a com- ment resolution meeting can be held with WSDOT personnel to further discuss and resolve the comments and reviews. As previously described, STP is in charge of performing design QC/QA. Although WSDOT personnel are not directly involved in performing any design QC/QA procedures, they may audit the design QC reviews and QA audits to verify that the design QC/QA procedures are implemented correctly. Other Forms of Communication and Coordination In addition to participating in the design reviews, the project stakeholders and STP may com- municate during formal task force meetings or informal, over-the-shoulder review meetings (Table 24). Value Engineering To allow and foster the proposal of original technical solutions during the pre- and post- award phases, WSDOT establishes value engineering procedures. In particular, ATC are allowed in the pre-award phase, while design-builder initiated change proposals are allowed in the post-award phase. Pre-Award Value Engineering: Alternative Technical Concepts WSDOT defines ATCs as proposals that are deemed, in WSDOT’s sole discretion, “equal or better” than what is specified in the RFPs (WSDOT, 2010). WSDOT determines to provide one of the following judgments to a proposed ATC: 1. The ATC is approved; 2. The ATC is not approved;

140 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects 3. The ATC is not approved in its present form but may be reconsidered for approval upon satisfaction, in WSDOT’s sole discretion, of certain identified conditions that must be met or certain clarifications or modifications that must be made as described hereunder. The pro- poser shall not have the right to incorporate this ATC into the proposal unless and until the ATC has been resubmitted within the time limits in the ITP (instructions to proposers), with the conditions stated below satisfied, and WSDOT has unconditionally approved the revised ATC; or 4. The submittal does not qualify as an ATC but appears eligible to be included in the proposal without an ATC (i.e., the concept appears to conform to the basic configuration and to be consistent with other contract requirements) (WSDOT 2010 p. 14). Moreover, WSDOT retains the right to request additional information about a proposed ATC and to hold one-on-one meetings with the proposers to review and discuss the proposed ATCs. Furthermore, since WSDOT provides a stipend to the proposers ($4 million), WSDOT retains also “the right to use any ideas or information contained in the unsuccessful Proposals” (WSDOT 2010 p. 13). Post-Award Value Engineering: Design-Builder Initiated Change Proposals WSDOT also encouraged the design-builder to submit VE change proposals by awarding part or all of the associated cost savings, depending on the nature of the proposal. Different categories of VE proposals were stipulated into the contract (WSDOT 2012). a. Shared savings—If approved by the agency, the cost savings realized by these types of changes are equally split between the agency and the design-builder (after discounting all the additional Task Force Meetings Over-the-Shoulder Review Meetings Scope Review design packages before submittal. Document formal agreements on code and design manual interpretations. Solve issues affecting project direction and schedule. Review status of design submittal package, status plan sets, and calculations. Review specific design packages. Discuss design approaches and code/manual interpretations. Identify items to discuss in task force meetings. Attendees Required attendees: WSDOT project management team members STP project discipline leads Representatives from other project stakeholders Expected attendees: Interested WSDOT project management team members STP engineering manager Interested STP project discipline leads Design team package lead STP construction personnel Interested representatives from other project stakeholders Agenda The STP engineering manager is in charge of detailing and sharing the agenda with meeting participants a minimum of three days prior to the meeting. These meetings allow participants to talk informally about project issues. Thus, only a general agenda is maintained. Decisions made in these meetings are recorded at task force meetings. Schedule Typically, these meetings are held monthly for most of the disciplines during the design phase. Typically, these meetings are held weekly for most of the disciplines during the design phase. Table 24. Task force and over-the-shoulder review meeting characteristics (STP 2012).

Case Study—Project: Sr 99 Tunnel (alaskan Way Viaduct) Washington Department of Transportation 141 costs incurred by WSDOT due to the design-builder initiated change proposal). These changes could occur in two circumstances: • The change requires design deviation; or • The change includes ideas from unsuccessful proposals. b. Design-builder retained savings—The design-builder retains all the cost savings if the proposed change is considered by WSDOT to be equal to or better than the requirement pro- posed to be changed. c. Negotiated savings—The cost savings generated by changes different from the changes pre- viously described are shared as the parties mutually agree. These proposed changes are denied if the parties are not able to find an agreement on how to share the savings. Interdependencies Between Design and Other Activities Environmental Permits WSDOT was responsible for completing the NEPA documentation and obtaining the envi- ronmental permits, such as the ROD, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the coastal management permit, and the shoreline permit. Other Permits The design-builder was responsible for obtaining all the construction-related permits, such as the City of Seattle street use permits, haul road agreements, and permits and/or easements associated with the construction site access. Right-of-Way (ROW) WSDOT executed the property acquisitions after receiving the ROD and, therefore, after con- tract award. Thus, the agency retained the risks associated with these property acquisitions. To allow the proposers to design the facility and effectively develop the project schedule, WSDOT provided to the proposers a property acquisition schedule during the procurement phase. This document was based on the preliminary design developed by the agency for the request for proposals and detailed the properties that the agency was going to acquire and the timeframe for such acquisitions. Moreover, WSDOT allowed the proposers to identify additional proper- ties through the ATC process. Nevertheless, WSDOT did not retain any risk associated with the acquisition of these additional properties. In fact, the contract stated that the “Design-Builder agrees that it shall be fully responsible for and shall bear all risk of increased costs and delays resulting from or arising in connection with the acquisition of such additional property rights” (p. 25; WSDOT, 2012). In addition to the properties directly affected by the facility, the agency and the design-builder closely collaborated to obtain the temporary construction easements necessary for the con- struction activities. Furthermore, given the necessity to monitor the possible building foun- dation settlements due to the tunnel construction, the agency and the design-builder had to obtain the right-of-entry for the buildings above the tunnel to install the necessary monitoring instrumentation. Utility Relocation Public Utilities Most of the utilities affected by the project were utilities owned by either the City of Seattle or King County. Prior to contract award, the agency and the public utility owners signed Intergovernmental Agreements to govern all the utility adjustments and/or relocations. These

142 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects agreements were incorporated into the contract documents. Therefore, public utility reloca- tions were included in the project scope, and the design-builder was held responsible to per- form all necessary work. Private Utilities The design-builder was responsible to coordinate with the private utility owners and negotiate all the necessary adjustments and relocations. Two types of private utilities were defined in the contract documents. • Category #1—Private utility owners that had cost responsibilities associated with the utility adjustments and/or relocations. • Category #2—Private utility owners that did not have cost responsibilities associated with the utility adjustments and/or relocations. For utilities owned by Category #1 owners, the design-builder had to seek reimbursements from the owners, and it could not include any cost related with these utility adjustments and/or relocations in the contract price. For utilities owned by Category #2 owners, the design-builder had to reimburse the owners, and such reimbursements could be included in the contract price. Public Involvement The public involvement efforts were shared between the agency and the design-builder. WSDOT was responsible for leading the public involvement at a macro level, such as involving and discussing with elected officials, issuing press releases, and managing the Alaskan Way Via- duct Replacement Program website and the Milepost 31 Information Center. The design-builder was responsible for supporting the agency (e.g., by providing graphics and updates for the web- site) and leading the public involvement at a micro level, such as talking with property owners affected by construction activities. References Kramer, S. L., and Eberhard, M. O. (1995). Seismic Vulnerability of the Alaskan Way Viaduct: Summary Report. Seattle, WA. STP. (2012). Design Quality Management Plan. Sheridan, M. (2004). Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Appendix L. Steakley, L. (2004). “Seattle Plans to Replace Viaduct with $4-Billion Tunnel.” ENR.com. WSDOT. (2009). Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project History Report. WSDOT. (2010). Instructions to Proposers—SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative. WSDOT. (2012). Design-Build Contract—SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative