Geotechnical Information Practices in Design-Build Projects (2012)

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.

66 CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION Chapter one sets the criteria used in this report for draw- ing conclusions and identifying effective practices. Subjects where two or more lines of information from the survey, literature review, and/or content analysis intersected were considered significant and used to develop the conclusions and candidates for the list of effective practices. Substantive points on design-build (DB) project success that was cor- roborated by only one source of information showed poten- tial for future research. That process was followed rigorously throughout the entire report. Both results are based on the four research instruments used to collect in the information in the synthesis: comprehensive literature review, survey of U.S. agencies, DB solicitation document content analysis, and case studies. When a gap in the body of knowledge was revealed, a suggestion for future research was made. Therefore, based on that foundation, this chapter presents conclusions, effective practices, and suggestions for future research. Figure 13 depicts the DB project geotechnical decision process used by departments of transportation (DOTs) as documented in the synthesis study. DOTs use risk mitiga- tion measures such as mandated geotechnical design solu- tion, confidential alternative technical concepts (ATCs), and specifying performance measurements as tools to manage risk while necessarily releasing control over the DB project. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were reached in the conduct of this research. They are not listed in any order of importance. • DOTs with DB experience evaluate the risk and impact of unforeseen geotechnical conditions before select- ing DB project delivery. The emphasis on formal risk analysis differentiates the DOTs with multiproject DB experience and those new to the delivery method. The case studies proved that DB provisions can be nested in design-bid-build (DBB) contracts for specific geo- technical work. • Experienced DOTs tailor the amount of geotechni- cal information that is included in the DB request for proposal (RFP) to the specific requirements of a given project. Thus, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for selecting a project delivery method based on its geo- technical requirements. The use of a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) or a Geotechnical Data Report is a means to allocate subsurface condition risk. • Permitting interactivity during the proposal prepara- tion period allows the agency to understand how com- peting design-builders perceive the geotechnical risk and provides an opportunity to adjust the procurement plan to accommodate a need for supplemental informa- tion. This could include interactivity with competing design-builders during DB proposal preparation by means of an RFP clause that initiates confidential one- on-one meetings resulting in preapproved elements (PAEs) that reduce risk to the design-builders. • The qualifications of the geotechnical designers and the experience with geotechnical projects of companies that make up the DB team are key to achieving quality in the constructed DB project. Also, achieving satisfactory quality of geotechnical design and construction deliver- ables in DB contracting is perceived to be most affected by the qualifications and experience of the people who will execute the geotechnical design, design review, and construction tasks required by the project. • Addressing geotechnical issues early in the DB pro- curement process is important. • The appropriate number of geotechnical design reviews is a function of the need for the design-builder to maintain an aggressive schedule. If the project is not schedule-constrained, the owner can afford to add more design review points. On the other hand, for fast- track projects, the process can be expedited through the use of over-the-shoulder reviews and other similar techniques (see chapter five for more information on these techniques). • The agencies that responded to the survey retain most traditional roles and responsibilities for quality man- agement (QM) that are related to geotechnical quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) tasks. • The design QA plan is perceived as the most important aspect of the DB geotechnical QM planning process. • The design-builder is entitled to rely on the geotechni- cal information in the DB RFP, and the differing site conditions (DSCs) furnish a mechanism under which the design-builder can claim additional costs and time if the RFP information does not reasonably match the actual conditions.

67 FIGURE 13 Design-build geotechnical decision process based on the conclusions and effective practices.

68 • The weight of geotechnical factors must be assigned proportionately to the other factors that define success for a given DB project. • The ATC process is a viable approach to reducing per- ceived geotechnical risks by allowing competing design- builders to propose geotechnical design solutions with which they have both experience and confidence. • A partnering clause of some form is used in most DOT DB contracts. • Comparisons of the synthesis survey results with the results published by Shane et al. (2011) regarding DB project quality show that agencies are willing to sac- rifice potential geotechnical design innovation for proven performance as defined by agency-mandated design details and specifications and are using this mechanism to manage schedule risk. • To be successful in a DSC claim, the design-builder must rigorously adhere to the notice conditions in the DSC clause. EFFECTIVE PRACTICES Effective practices are identified when the analyses found instances of success when certain techniques or approaches were utilized in the procurement, design, or QM of a DB project. Addi- tionally, the case study analysis identified a few other effective practices based on the detailed analysis found in those projects. Effective Practices in Design-Build Geotechnical Procurement • Seven DOTs (see Table 21) use confidential one-on-one meetings with each proposer before proposal submis- sion to identify need for further geotechnical inves- tigation as well as to clarify RFP risk issues. These meetings are also used to discuss, review, and approve ATCs before DB proposals are submitted. • Another five DOTs (see Table 21) allow confidential ATCs be submitted for review and approval before DB proposals are submitted. • The Vermont Agency of Transportation and the Maine DOT issue a draft DB RFP and ask for comments from the competing design-builders on the short list as a means to identify geotechnical aspects of the project that need clarification before a proposal is due. • The Washington State, North Carolina, and Maine DOTs allow proposers to request supplementary bor- ings during proposal preparation to better align the geotechnical information with a given design-builder’s proposed design. • Some DOTs, such as Utah, encourage competing design-builders to conduct their own pre-bid geotech- nical investigations before developing their proposals. • The relative geotechnical weight can be tailored as appropriate for each DB project in a manner similar to those used by the Florida, Virginia, and Washington State DOTs. Effective Practices in Design-Build Geotechnical Design • All survey respondents, regardless of DB experience, agree that partnering adds value to DB project execution. • Experienced agencies use over-the-shoulder design reviews to create a mechanism for agency geotechnical personnel to have input into the design without stop- ping the design process and thus facilitate progress on early DB work packages. • Including the option for early design-builder-requested design reviews on specific design packages can gain agency concurrence on the adequacy of the geotechni- cal design at the point when it is most needed, rather than having to wait for the formal design review. Effective Practices in Design-Build Geotechnical Quality Management • Experienced DOTs require the geotechnical engineer- ing design QA plan to include specific procedures for involving the construction contractor in reviewing the constructability of geotechnical designs, as well as details on how the agency will be involved in the design QA process through its role of oversight, review, and acceptance of design deliverables. • Combining selected design detail and specifications mandates with preproposal approval of geotechnical design approach provides a vehicle to manage techni- cal and schedule risk on the geotechnical features of a DB transportation project. Case Study Effective Practices • The use of a “nested” DB provision that required a prequalified geotechnical specialty subcontractor to be a member of DBB general contractor’s team on a project with known geotechnical issues provided a mechanism to expeditiously resolve a landslide. This technique not only saved time, but also brought an innovative tempo- rary soil nail wall solution that permitted the slope to be stabilized without lane closure on an urban freeway. • The use of selective unit pricing as done by the Montana, Delaware, and Virginia DOTs provides an effective means for managing geotechnical quantity risk. • Permitting some form of confidential discussion and clarification of geotechnical risk during DB proposal preparation through a process such as the Mn/DOT one-on-one meetings can help competing design- builders make design assumptions that can be priced without the need to include large contingencies. • The ability to assess design-builder ATCs before pro- posal submission and the use of PAEs encourages inno- vative design solutions to difficult geotechnical design

69 problems, such as the north approach settlement prob- lem in the Hastings Bridge project. The confidentiality of the process is the key to its success. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The synthesis uncovered a number of gaps in the body of knowledge about addressing the geotechnical aspects of DB projects. The following is a list of suggestions for future research and a brief description of what form that research might take. • The major issue that must be addressed in this topic was not specifically identified in any of the chapters. However, when one takes a broad perspective of the issues discussed in this report, an important research need is for new methods to characterize the geotechni- cal conditions of DB project sites during preliminary engineering. The literature review uncovered a num- ber of technologies that may hold promise for provid- ing required geotechnical data without the time and expense of traditional site investigation. One example is a reusable instrumented test pile under development by the California DOT. This device can measure tem- perature, pore pressure, acceleration, inclination, and axial and radial loads. Other technologies such as the application of geophysics and the robust use of the cone penetrometer as well as technologies in use in the petroleum industry may also hold promise. The recom- mended research could focus on the investigative prac- tices and guidelines that various agencies have used to address geotechnical risk on DB projects and their level of success. Geophysical and various in-situ testing techniques could also be incorporated into the research. The research would also consider the perspective of the geotechnical community and DB contractor. The goal of the research ultimately would be to provide meaning- ful information for use by the state agencies in develop- ment of guidelines in performing a site and subsurface for DB projects pre-award. Therefore, an NCHRP syn- thesis project is recommended to benchmark the state of the practice in geotechnical data collection technolo- gies that can be used to rapidly characterize project subsurface conditions in a manner that permits the data collected to be used for information in DB RFPs. The outcome of the synthesis could then be used to develop a full-scale project to exploit the technologies with the most promise for accomplishing this objective. • Guidance is needed on how to effectively address and evaluate geotechnical factors that can be developed and incorporated into DOT DB guidelines. The research would elaborate on the value of including geotechni- cal technical evaluation factors in the DB project’s requests for qualifications to encourage competing design-builders to team with highly qualified geotech- nical designers and include project management and field personnel with extensive geotechnical experience in the construction team. • Research is needed to quantify the benefits of geotech- nical ATCs on DB projects. The results can be made available to agencies that are new to alternative project delivery methods and furnish both guidance and fac- tual performance information to assist them in deter- mining whether ATCs are attractive in their markets. • Future research on what types of geotechnical review steps should be contained in agency-level DB guide- lines and in RFPs for projects with significant geotech- nical aspects is recommended. The research would include the process for effectively implementing over- the-shoulder design reviews. • Future research is needed in the area of applying QM theories such as the advanced quality system to the development of preliminary geotechnical engineering and site investigation plans to support DB projects with significant geotechnical issues that cannot be resolved before issuing the DB RFP. • Research is recommended that explores optimiz- ing technical risk of innovative geotechnical design approaches with schedule risk. The research would furnish DOTs with guidance on the amount of pre- scriptive design content to include in projects with sig- nificant geotechnical issues. • Guidance is needed about effectively managing geo- technical cost, time, and technical risk in DB projects. The research will examine— – Potential costs and benefits of employing selective unit pricing as a geotechnical risk management technique. – The optimal use of payment provisions and incen- tives to share geotechnical risk, both in the solicita- tion documents and during project execution. – Use of specialty geotechnical DB subcontracts in DBB prime contracts such as the Missouri DOT “nested” DB contract. – When to employ GBRs in DB projects and how to effectively obtain contractor input to the final GBR. • Since a number of state DOTs use some form of inter- activity during DB proposal preparation, research is needed to quantify the costs and benefits of instituting a program such as Minnesota DOT’s PAE process and to furnish guidance to agencies that do not allow inter- action in their DB programs. The research would also include the exploration of legal barriers to implementa- tion as well as case studies of any litigation or protests that resulted from the use of this approach.

70 REFERENCES Allen, L.N., D.D. Gransberg, and K.R. Molenaar, “Partner- ing Successful Design-Build Contracts in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Division,” The Military Engineer, Vol. 94, No. 616 (Mar. 2002), pp. 47–48. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” ASCE, Reston, Va., 2010, pp. 75–106. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Design- Build Procurement & Administration Policy, ADOT, Phoenix, 1997. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Intermodal Transportation Division, Design-Build Procurement and Administration Guide, 2nd ed., ADOT Construction Group, Phoenix, Dec. 2001 [Online]. Available: http:// www.azdot.gov/Highways/ConstGrp/DesignBuild- Guide.asp [accessed Jan. 24, 2007]. Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (ASHTD), Design-Build Guidelines and Procedures ASHTD, Little Rock, Ark., Apr. 2006, 29 pp. Atzei, A., P. Groepper, M. Novara, and K. Pseiner, “Innova- tions for Competitiveness: European Views on ‘better- faster-cheaper’,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 44 (7–12) (April–June 1999), pp. 745–754. Avant, J., “Innovative Government Contracting,” master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainsville, Fla., 1999, pp. 22–29. Beard, L.J., C.M. Loulakis, and C.E. Wundram, Design- Build: Planning Through Development, 1st ed., McGraw– Hill Professional, New York, N.Y., 2001, p. 10. Behnke, D.L. and R.G. Ames, “Technical Proposal, TH61, Hastings Bridge Design-Build Project,” Lunda-Ames JV, Hastings, Minn., May 17, 2010, 34 pp. Blanchard, B., “Design-Build Lessons Learned Florida DOT,” Proceedings, Louisiana Transportation Engineer- ing Conference, Baton Rouge, La., Feb. 2007, pp. 6–14. Byrd, L.G. and A.A. Grant, “Prerequisites for a Successful Design/Build/Warranty Highway Construction Con- tract,” A Report to the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1993 [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot. gov/programadmin/contracts/byrd.cfm [accessed Dec. 4, 2010]. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), “Design-Build Demonstration Program,” Web Docu- ment, Caltrans, Sacramento, 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/designbuild/db.htm [accessed Oct. 30, 2010]. Carpenter, J., “WSDOT Design-build Project Delivery Guidance Statement: Alternative Technical Concepts,” Washington State DOT, Olympia, Apr. 10, 2010, 15 pp. Carter & Burgess, Inc., I-15 Corridor Reconstruction Proj- ect; Design/Build Evaluation 1998 Annual Report, Utah Department of Transportation Report No. UT-98.10, 1998, pp. 1–45. Centennial Contractors, Inc., Design-Build Project Manual, Centennial Contractors, Inc., Vienna, Va., 2004, 137 pp. Christensen, M.R. and L.E. Meeker, “Design/Build Proj- ects—Lessons Learned from the Contractor’s Perspec- tive,” Proceedings, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, Lanham, Md., 2002, p. 14. City and County of Honolulu (CCH), “Honolulu High- Capacity Transit Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Appendix C—Construction Process,” City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, 2008, pp. 2–9. Clark, G.T. and A. Borst, “Addressing Risk in Seattle’s Underground,” PB Network, Jan. 2002, pp. 34–38. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), “Colorado Department of Transportation Design-Build Guidelines,” Draft issued Feb. 1, 1997 for Review and Comment, 3 pp. Crofford, C., “What’s New in Facility Design Requirements” presentation, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, NAVFAC Atlantic Design Conference, Norfolk, Va., June 22, 2010, 24 pp. Cushman, R.F. and M.C. Loulakis, Design-Build Contract- ing Handbook, 2nd ed., Aspen Publishers, New York, N.Y., 2001, 603 pp. Department of Defense (DoD), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), UFC 1-300-09N 25 May 2005 Including Change 7, DoD, Washington, D.C., Jan. 27, 2010, 93 pp. Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), Manual of Pol- icy Statements, DBIA, Washington, D.C., 1998, p. 5. Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), Design-Build Man- ual of Practice, DBIA, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 6–35. Diekmann, J.E. and M.C. Nelson, “Construction Claims: Frequency and Severity,” Journal of Construction Engi- neering Management, Vol. 111, No. 1, 1985, pp. 74–81. Dowall, D.E. and J. Whittington, Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, 2003, 13 pp.

71 Drennon, P.W., “Utah’s I-15, a Transportation Case Study: Role of the Owner’s Design Professional in Design/Build and in the Provisions for Quality,” Quality Congress. ASQ’s ... Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwau- kee, Wis., 1998, p. 166. Dwyre, E.M., Z. Batchko, and R.J. Castelli, “Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Foundation Projects,” Proceedings, GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199), Orlando, Fla., 2010, pp. 1–10. Ernzen, J., G. Murdough, and D. Drecksel, “Partnering on a Design-Build Project: Making the Three-Way Love Affair Work,” Transportation Research Record 1712, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 202–212. Ernzen, J. and T. Feeney, “Contractor-Led Quality Control and Quality Assurance Plus Design-Build: Who Is Watching the Quality?” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Record, No. 1813, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 253–259. Essex, R., “Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Construction: Suggested Guidelines,” Underground Technical Research Council, ASCE, Reston, Va., 2007, 72 pp. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), “Two Phase Design Build Selection,” Federal Register, 62 FR 271, Vol. 62, No. 1, 2000. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), “Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work,” Part 52.236-3, 1984 [Online]. Available: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/ html/52_233_240.html#wp1113375 [accessed July 8, 2011]. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “Geotechnical Differing Site Conditions,” Geotechnical Engineering Notebook, Geotechnical Guideline No. 15, FHWA, Washington, D.C., Apr. 30, 1996, 36 pp. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “SEP-14 Active Project List,” Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.f hwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/ sep14list.cfm [accessed Dec. 2, 2009]. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Design-Build Effectiveness Study—As Required by TEA-21 Section 1307(f): Final Report, FHWA, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2006, 215 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot. gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild0.htm [Mar. 20, 2011]. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “Current Design- Build Practices for Transportation Projects,” 2011 [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construc- tion/contracts/pubs/dbpractice/06.cfm [June 2, 2011]. Finnish Road Administration, “Procurement Strategy of the Finnish Road Administration,” Finnish Road Adminis- tration, Helsinki, Finland, 2003, pp. 27–29. Finley, R.C., “What Does Contingency Mean to You?” Design-Build Contractor Contingency Planning, Slater & Son, Inc., 2011, p. 1 [Online]. Available: http://www.slat- erandson.com/page/article.php [June 16, 2011]. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), “Alternative Technical Concepts Reviews,” FDOT Design-build Guidelines, Vol. 2, Feb. 4, 2011 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.state.f l.us/construction/designbuild/ DBDocuments/RFPDocs/AlternativeTechnicalCon- cepts.pdf [May 26, 2011]. Friedlander, M.C., Risk Allocation in Design-Build Con- struction Projects, Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, Ill., 2003, 31 pp. Gharaibeh, N.G. and A.G. Miron, “Warranty Specifications for Highway Construction Current Practices and Evolu- tion to Advanced Quality Systems,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2081, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 77–82. Gladke, J., “Incentives on Design-build Projects: Two Dif- ferent Approaches,” Design-Build: A Quality Process, Transportation Research Circular E-C090, Transporta- tion Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006, p. 8. Gonderinger, C., “TH 14/218 Design-Build Project Techni- cal Memorandum Quality Management Plan (QC/QA Requirements),” Minnesota Department of Transporta- tion Technical Memorandum, St. Paul, Minn., 2001, pp. 1–17. Grammer, M., “Design-Build in the Corps of Engineers, A Work in Progress,” The Military Engineer, No. 609 (Jan.– Feb. 2001), pp. 21–22. Gransberg, D.D. and S.P. Senadheera, “Design-Build Con- tract Award Methods for Transportation Projects,” Jour- nal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 6, Nov. 1998, pp. 565-567. Gransberg, D.D., W.D. Dillon, H.L. Reynolds, and J. Boyd, “Quantitative Analysis of Partnered Project Perfor- mance,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Man- agement, ASCE, Vol.125, No. 3, June 1999, pp 161-166. Gransberg, D.D. and K.R. Molenaar, “A Synthesis of Public Design-Build Source Selection Methods” Journal of Con- struction Procurement, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2003, pp. 40–51. Gransberg, D.D. and K.R. Molenaar, “Analysis of Owner’s Design and Construction Quality Management Approaches in Design-Build Projects,” Journal of Man- agement in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 20, No. 4, Oct. 2004, pp. 162–169. Gransberg, D.D., K.R. Molenaar, and J.N. Datin, NCHRP Synthesis 376: Quality Assurance in Design-Build Proj- ects, Transportation Research Board National Acade- mies, Washington, D.C., 2008, 139 pp.

72 Gransberg, D.D. and C. Riemer, “Impact of Inaccurate Engi- neer’s Estimated Quantities on Unit Price Contracts,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 11, Nov. 2009, pp. 1138–1145. Hatem, D.J., “Risk Allocation for Subsurface Conditions and Defective Design,” Design-Build Subsurface Proj- ects, G.S. Brierley, D.H. Corkum, and D.J. Hatem, Eds., Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Engle- wood, Colo., 2011, 228 pp. Higbee, J.B., “Geotechnical Issues with Large Design–Build Highway Projects,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1868, Transportation Research Board of the National Acade- mies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 147–153. Hoek, E. and A. Palmieri, “Geotechnical Risks on Large Civil Engineering Projects,” International Association of Engineering Geologists Congress, Vancouver, BC, Can- ada, Sep. 1998. Hoppe, E.J., J. Yoon, D.H. Whitehouse, and L.E. Kodger, “Geotechnical Data Management at the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation,” 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Jan. 23–27, 2011, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 15 pp. Hung, C.J., J. Monsees, N. Munfah, and J. Wisniewski, Techni- cal Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels— Civil Elements, Technical Report FHWA-NHI-10-034, National Highway Institute, New York, N.Y. 2009, 704 pp. Jones, J., “Newly Developed Test Pile Intended to Improve Pile Design,” Civil Engineering, June 2011, pp. 42–43. Kelleher, T.J., Smith, Currie & Hancock’s Common Sense Construction Law: A Practical Guide for the Construc- tion Professional, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 2009, 573 pp. Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy Research, “Impacts of Design-Build on the Public Work- force,” Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infra- structure Policy Research Paper 07-01, Apr. 2007, 48 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/ keston/research/index.html [June 1, 2011]. Killen, J.J. and G.E. Gibson, “Construction Litigation for the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982– 2002,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Man- agement, Vol. 131, No. 9, 2005, pp. 24–31. Kim, K.J., C.A. Kreider, and M.D. Valiquette, “North Caro- lina Department of Transportation’s Practice and Experi- ence with Design–Build Contracts Geotechnical Perspective,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2116, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 47–52. Koch, J.E., D.D. Gransberg, and K.R. Molenaar. Project Administration for Design-Build: A Primer for Owners, Engineers, and Contractors, ASCE Press, Reston, Va., 2010, 286 pp. Leahy, R.B., et al., Transportation Research Circular E-C137: Glossary of Highway Quality Assurance Terms, Transportation Research Board of the National Acade- mies, Washington, D.C., May 2009, 44 pp. Loulakis, M.C., B.P. Wagner, and H.C. Splan, “Differing Site Conditions,” Chapter 11, Construction Claims Desk- book, R.S. Brams and C. Lerner, Eds., Aspen Law and Business, New York, N.Y., 1995, pp. 131–166. Loulakis, M.C. and O.J. Shean, “Risk Transference in Design- Build Contracting,” Construction Briefings, 2nd series, Federal Publications, Washington, D.C., 1996, 12 pp. Mahdi, I.M. and K. Alreshaid, “Decision Support System for Selecting the Proper Project Delivery Method Using Analytical Hierarchy Process,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, 2005, pp. 564–572. Maine Department of Transportation, Request for Propos- als, I-295 Commercial Street Connector, FHWA Project No. IMD-7589(300), Maine DOT Project No. 7589.30, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, 2003. Maine Department of Transportation, Request for Proposals, Caribou Connector New Highway and Bridge Construction Design-build Project, Project No. HPP-STP-6462-500, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, Oct. 13, 2010. McLain K.W. and J.S. Shane, “A Case for Design-Build with the Missouri Department of Transportation,” Kansas City Business Journal, Design Build Institute of America Supplement, 2009, 4 pp. McLain, K.W., “Design-Build Procurement Process for Slope Repairs and Slope Stabilization Projects for Road- ways on the Missouri State System,” master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 2008, 66 pp. Mendez, V., “Every Day Counts: Innovation Initiative,” Fed- eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1–2. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Request for Qualifications T.H. 52 Design-Build Project S.P. 5502-67, 5507-45, 5508-78; HPPMN45(101), NH014(308), District Six—Rochester, Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation, Rochester, Minn., 2001. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), “Approach to Alternative Technical Concepts,” Mn/DOT Design-Build Program White Paper No. MN-11, St. Paul, Aug. 12, 2003, p. 1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Addendum 5 Project Management Book 2B, Trunk High- way 52 Oronoco Design-Build Project, St. Paul, 2005.

73 Minnesota DOT (Mn/DOT), Request for Proposals, Book 1—TH 61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build Project S.P. 1913-64, Mn/DOT, Metro District, St. Paul, Jan. 13, 2010, p. 7. Mississippi Department of Transportation, Request for Pro- posals, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Biloxi to Ocean Springs Bridge Jackson and Harrison Counties, Mississippi, Contract No. ER/BR-0003-01(099) 104556/301000—Biloxi/ Ocean Springs Bridge, Mississippi Department of Trans- portation, Jackson, 2005. Mitchell, B.P., “The Applicability of the Spearin Doctrine: Do Owners Warrant Plans and Specifications?” Find Law for Legal Professionals, 1999 [Online]. Available: http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Aug/1/128038.html [accessed Mar. 24, 2007]. Molenaar, K.R. and D.D. Gransberg, “Design-builder Selec- tion for Small Highway Projects,” Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 4, Oct. 2001, pp. 214–223. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), Design- Build Guidelines, MDT, Helena, Apr. 14, 2008, p. 34. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), Design- Build Request for Proposal US 2—Rockfall Mitigation, Flathead County, Project # SFCN 1-2(169)154, MDT, Helena, Mar. 25, 2011, 39 pp. Nelsen, D., “Quality Glossary,” Quality Progress, American Society for Quality, June 2007 [Online]. Available: http:// asq.org/quality-progress/2007/06/quality-tools/quality- glossary.html [accessed June 5, 2011]. Nicholson, T., “AIA Teaching Architects to Lead Design- Build Teams,” Design-Build Magazine, McGraw–Hill Construction, May/June 2005 [Online]. Available: http:// designbuild.const ruct ion.com /features /archive / 2005/0506_feature2.asp [accessed Dec. 4, 2010]. Nickerson, R.L. and S.A. Sabol, NCHRP Research Results Digest 274: Quality Assurance of Structural Materials, Transportation Research Board of the National Acade- mies, Washington, D.C., Aug. 2003, 21 pp. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), “Geotechnical Guidelines for Design-Build Projects,” NCDOT, Raleigh, June 2009, pp. 1–2 [Online]. Avail- able: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/altern/ design_build/geotechGuidelines062909.pdf [accessed Sep. 29, 2011]. Panchmatia, P., “Quality Through People: A Practical Approach,” American Society for Quality, 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.asq-qm.org/pandp-qfd [accessed June 5, 2011]. Papernik, B.G. and D.J. Farkas, “Using Alternative Tech- nical Concepts to Improve Design-Build and PPP Pro- curements,” Nossaman E-Alerts [Online]. Available: http://www.nossaman.com/using-alternative-techni- cal-concepts-improve-designbuild-ppp, [accessed May 26, 2011]. Pappe, R.S., “ODOT’s Design-build Program,” Presenta- tion, American Council of Engineering Companies Con- ference, Salem, Oreg., 2008. [Online]. Available: http:// www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/MPB/docs/designbuild/ Design _Bui ld _Conversat ion _041508.pdf ?ga = t [accessed June 2, 2011]. Perkins, R.A., “Sources of Changes in Design–Build Con- tracts for a Governmental Owner,” Journal of Construc- tion Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 7, July 1, 2009, pp. 89-94. Peters, M., “An Important Project,” Canal Road Intermodal Connector Meeting, Gulfport, Miss., 2003 [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/re031021. htm [accessed Sep. 16, 2006]. Petrello, R., “Kiewit Wins $483M Oahu Rail Contract,” Pacific Business News, pp. 1–2 [Online]. Available: http:// www.bizjournals.com/pacif ic /stories /2009/10/19/ daily32.html [accessed June 16, 2011]. Phipps, A.R., “Maine Builds Longest-Span Precast Segmen- tal Bridge with Unique Design-Build Selection Process, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- portation Research Board, No. 1696, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 71–76. Potter, J.M. and D.K. McMahon, Selecting a Quality Con- trol/Quality Assurance Program for a Mega Design- Build Project, Rummel, Klepper, and Kahl, LLP, Baltimore, Md., 2006, 12 pp. Richmond, D., J. Cown, D. Ball, and J.M. Rolland, “Private Sector Investments in Public Infrastructure,” Canadian Council for Public–Private Partnerships, 2006, p. 14 [Online]. Available: http://www.pppcouncil.ca/pdf/ metropolis_06152006.pdf [accessed Mar. 20, 2011]. Schaefer, V.R., S.C. Douglas, and R.R. Berg, “SHRP2 R02 Geotechnical Solutions for Transportation Infrastruc- ture: Guidance and Selection System,” 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washing- ton, D.C., Jan. 23–27, 2011. Schexnayder, C.J. and R. Mayo, Construction Management Fundamentals, McGraw–Hill, New York, N.Y., 2004, pp. 282–283. Scott, S., K.R. Molenaar, D.D. Gransberg, and N. Smith, NCHRP Report 561: Best Value Procurement for High- way Construction Projects, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Sep. 2006, p. 103. Shane, J.S., D.D. Gransberg, K.R. Molenaar, and J.R. Gladke, “Legal Challenge to a Best-Value Procurement

74 System,” Journal of Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan. 2006), pp. 1–6. Shane, J.S., D.D. Gransberg, and K. Strong, “Project Deliv- ery Method Impact on Final Project Quality: Perceptions in the Transportation Industry,” 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23–27, 2011. Sirles, P.C. and Z. Batchko, “Mapping Soft Soil Zones and Top-of-Bedrock Beneath High-Traffic Areas in Honolulu Using 2D ReMi,” Proceedings, GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199), West Palm Beach, Fla., Feb. 20–24, 2010, 900 pp. Smith, N.C., “Getting What You Paid For: The Quality Assur- ance and Acceptance Process for Transportation Projects,” Proceedings, American Bar Association Forum on the Construction Industry, Denver, Colo., 2001, pp. 17–18. Smith, R., “An Evolving View of Geotechnical Engineer- ing—A Focus on Geo-Risk Management,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178, GeoCongress 2008: Geo- sustainability and Geohazard Mitigation, New Orleans, La., Mar. 9–12 2008, pp. 231–239. Songer, A.D. and K.R. Molenaar, “Selecting Design-Build: Private and Public Sector Owner Attitudes,” Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 6, 1996, pp. 47–53. Texas Turnpike Authority, “Request for Proposals to Con- struct, Maintain and Repair the SH 130 Turnpike Through an Exclusive Development Agreement,” Texas Depart- ment of Transportation, Austin, 2001. Thiessen, D.A., “Gerald Desmond Bridge,” Port of Long Beach Design-Build Industry Workshop, Long Beach, Calif., Aug. 10, 2010, 36 pp. Trauner Consulting Services, “Innovative Procurement Practices Alternative Procurement and Contracting Methods,” California Department of Transportation Report No. 53A0104 Sacramento, 2007, pp. 10–12 Tufenkjian, M., Review of Geotechnical Services, California Department of Transportation, Final Report, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT, Washington, D.C., May 2007, 76 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.dot. ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/page/fhwa.pdf [accessed Mar. 20, 2011]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), MILCON Trans- formation Model RFP, Department of the Army, Wash- ington, D.C. 2007 [Online]. Available: ftp://ftp.usace. army.mil/pub/hqusace/MILCON%20TRANSFORMA- TION [accessed Apr. 14, 2007]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Army Reserve Design/Build RFP Instruction Manual, USACE, Wash- ington, D.C., Sep. 2009, 73 pp. Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), “Design- Build Contracting,” Montpelier, Vt., 2010a [Online] Available: http://www.aot.state.vt.us/conadmin/Design- Build.htm [accessed Mar. 20, 2011]. Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), Request for Qualifications, US Route Bridge Improvement, Bridge No. 24, Town of Richmond Vermont, VTrans Project No. Richmond STP-RS 0284(11), VTrans, Montpelier, Vt., 2010b, 46 pp. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), “General Conditions of Contract Between Department and Design- Builder,” Design-Build Standard Template Documents, VDOT, Richmond, 2010, 187 pp. [Online]. Available: ht tp: //www.virginiadot.org /business /resources / ipd/2010_TemplateDocuments_100511.pdf; [accessed July 8, 2011]. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Request for Proposals, Thurston Way Interchange, SR500 MP3.15 to MP 4.73, Clark County, WSDOT, Kelso, 2000. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Develop- ment, WSDOT, Olympia, 2004, 109 pp.