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.

32 CHAPTER FOUR DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION METHODS INTRODUCTION In a review of the I-15 DB project in Utah, a consultant stated, “it is during the development of the RFQ [request for qualifications] and RFP [request for proposals] that the ulti- mate quality of the project can be most influenced” (Dren- non 1998). Figure 1 shows the relationship between the influence of quality and the stage of the project. Quality is most influenced in procurement and the beginning of design but rapidly falls off during the later stages of design, con- struction, and maintenance. During the procurement phase, decisions are made as to what is included in the RFQ and/ or RFP. Some of these decisions are already set by state law or published department DB guides, while others are made on a project-by-project basis. This chapter discusses the spe- cific design-builder selection decisions involved in the pro- curement phase of a DB project and how the geotechnical requirements are incorporated into the selection decision. FIGURE 1 Relationship between project stage and influence of quality [Source: Adapted from Nickerson 2003]. Two early studies of public agency DB selection and award procedures attempted to identify best practices used by pub- lic agencies and the major project characteristics associated with each best practice subject (Gransberg and Senadheera 1998; Molenaar and Gransberg 2001). Since those studies were completed, many public entities have passed legisla- tion authorizing the use of DB. As each jurisdiction adds a DB law, it attempts to promulgate rules regarding the proper implementation of the authorizing legislation. As a result, it is not surprising to find two states that use the same term for a specific DB award method but use different algorithms to arrive at the source selection decision. This is particularly true with the term “Best Value” (BV). This term’s “official” meaning ranges from a relatively subjective comparison of price and proposal technical score in the FAR (FAR 2000) to an objective mathematical combination of the two used by several state DOTs (CDOT 1997; Carter and Burgess 1998; WSDOT 2000). Thus, the proliferation of various method- ologies has created a situation where a DB contractor must ask the agency that has authored the BV selection methodol- ogy about the details of the evaluation and award decision- making process in order to properly assess the odds of win- ning a given project. Table 15 illustrates this point with a hypothetical project and five typical agencies that each use a different method to make the BV decision. A synthesis of the literature found seven generic catego- ries for public project source selection procedures. These differ from those in the Design-Build Institute of America practice manual (DBIA 2009). Table 16 lists and defines the seven categories (MDT 2008). TABLE 15 EXAMPLE OF BEST VALUE SELECTION WITH FIVE TYPICAL AGENCIES Firm Technical Score Days Price Proposal INDOT Low Bid, Fully Qualified1 AZDOT BV with Quality Credit SCDOT Low Composite Score WSDOT High Best Value Score FHWA EFLHD Best Value A 92 450 $11,880,000 $11,880,000 $10,573,200 129,130 77.44 *63.10 B 86 460 $10,950,000 $10,950,000 $10,074,000 *127,326 *78.54 62.73 C 76 500 $9,850,000 $9,850,000 *$9,554,500 129,605 77.16 59.14 D 74 500 $9,760,000 *$9,760,000 $9,564,800 NR 75.82 57.99 E 68 500 $9,700,000 NR $9,700,000 NR 70.10 53.54 Source: Gransberg and Molenaar (2003). 1Fully qualified, technical score > 70; NR = not responsive, technical score < 75; *Winning proposal.

33 Most DOTs are constrained by enabling legislation as to which of these award methods can be used for DB projects (FHWA 2006). Nevertheless, all methods have three elements in common. First, all involve some form of evaluation of the design-builders’ qualifications and past experience. Next, all evaluate the technical aspects of the proposal. Finally, all have an algorithm where the technical evaluation is related to the proposed price and the output is used to identify the win- ning proposal. Therefore, if desired, the special geotechnical aspects of a given DB project can be included in the criteria used to evaluate people, corporations, proposed design, and proposed price. This is accomplished by ensuring that the DB procurement strategy reflects the needs for geotechnical aspects in the source selection decision process. Regardless of the algorithm used, it is important that the agency provide a clear expression of how it will select the design-builder and not create the impression that the process is overtly subjective (Shane et al. 2006; Kim et al. 2009). Consider a recent case, Brayman Construction Corp. vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 13 A.3d 925 (2011), where a contractor mounted a successful challenge to a two-step design-build best value (DBBV) procurement by Penn- sylvania DOT (PennDOT), citing a lack of objectivity in PennDOT’s Publication 448 procurement process. Among other findings, the court noted that PennDOT employees “were unable to give a clear description of how its best-value analysis works, with some conceding that the process is ‘kind of nebulous.’” DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT STRATEGY The special requirements for geotechnical considerations can be addressed in the typical DOT’s DB procurement pro- cess in four areas of the project’s solicitation documents: 1. Specific geotechnical qualifications for key personnel in the RFQ 2. Specific geotechnical design and construction experi- ence in the RFQ 3. The inclusion and weighting of geotechnical evalua- tion criteria in the proposal evaluation plan 4. Geotechnical information requirements required by the RFP to be included in competing proposals. The fourth area in this list was covered in chapter three. Therefore, the remainder of this chapter will be devoted to the remaining three areas. Geotechnical Factors in the Request for Qualification The survey conducted for NCHRP Synthesis 376 (Gransberg et al. 2008) found that the qualifications of the members of the DB team and its past project experiences were rated as having the most impact on final project quality of 11 factors rated by the DOT respondents. The same question was posed TABLE 16 BEST VALUE AWARD ALGORITHMS Best Value Award Algorithm Algorithm Variables Meets Technical Criteria –Low Bid If T > Tmin, Award to Pmin If T < Tmin, Non-Responsive T = Technical Score; P = Project Price Adjusted Bid AB = P/T Award ABmin AB = Adjusted Bid Adjusted Score AS = (T x EE)/P Award ASmax AS = Adjusted Score; EE = Engineer’s Estimate Weighted Criteria TS = W1S1 + W2S2 + … + WiSi + W(i+1)PS Award TSmax TS = Total Score; Wi = Weight of Factor i; Si = Score of Factor i; PS = Price Score Quantitative Cost –Technical Tradeoff TIncrement = [(Tj/Tj) – 1] x 100% PIncrement = [(Pj/Pi) – 1] x 100% If TIncrement > PIncrement, Award Proposali If TIncrement < PIncrement, Do Not Award Proposalj, Repeat with Proposalj+1 Repeat Process until TIncrement > PIncrement T = Technical Score; P = Project Price Qualitative Cost – Technical Tradeoff Similar to above, only no quantitative analysis of difference. Award to proposal that has best value in proposed scope. Fixed Price – Best Proposal Award Tmax, Fixed P T = Technical Score; P = Project Price Source: After MDT (2008).

34 in a geotechnical context for the respondents to this 42-01 survey. The same result was found. Among DOTs with more than five DB projects’ experience, 94% rated the geotechni- cal qualifications of the design-builder’s staff as the most important factor in final project quality and 88% rated the design-builder’s past geotechnical project experience as the second most important factor. The same is true for respon- dents with fewer than five DB projects’ experience, where the numbers were 82% for both categories. The results of both the NCHRP Synthesis 376 study and the current study indicate that the qualifications and past experience of the DB team are key to achieving quality in the constructed project. Table 17 shows the results of survey and two content anal- yses (which include the RFQs in the solicitation document population) regarding the evaluation of geotechnical factors contained in the DB project’s RFQ. The table shows that experienced DOTs evaluate more geotechnical information in this phase of the DB procurement, with all four qualifica- tions/past performance factors indicated by more than 50% of the respondents. The experienced DOTs also included geotechnical factors in the technical evaluation plan and in their RFQs. This is significant because knowledge of the technical evaluation plan will often influence the selec- tion of team members (Kim et al. 2009). Most of the eight RFQs in the solicitation documents emphasized past project experience over key personnel qualifications, and this factor was the most common found in the agency DB contracting guidelines. However, the guidelines were almost silent on the topic of geotechnical evaluation factors, with all factors being found in fewer than 25% of the documents. As indicated by the high response rate of experienced DOTs and the low rate of geotechnical factor inclusion found in both the RFQ and the DB guidelines, along with the NCHRP Synthesis 376 findings and the experienced DOTs’ rating of the impact of qualifications on constructed quality, addressing geotechnical issues early in the DB procurement process is important. The conclusion may suggest that geo- technical factors are addressed in DOT DB guidelines and that the technical evaluation factors relating to a DB proj- ect’s geotechnical requirements are included in the RFQ to encourage competing design-builders to team with highly qualified geotechnical designers as well as project manage- ment and field personnel with extensive geotechnical experi- ence on the construction team. Geotechnical Evaluation Criteria Evaluating geotechnical aspects of a design-builder’s pro- posal emphasizes the importance of this aspect to the com- petitors. One respondent to the DOT survey included the following comment on this topic: “Our first DB project involved major piers in the Mississippi River on the longest cable-stayed bridge in North America and the geotechnical aspects were not even considered in the primary scoring of the project…a minor oversight which had major impacts on the success and schedule of this project.” Additional empha- sis can be placed on project geotechnical factors in the struc- ture of the evaluation criteria for DB projects and how they are scored. Design-builders in writing their proposals will focus on the aspects of the project that are required in the proposal and that will be scored (Higbee 2004). Placing a specific geotechnical factor or issue in the RFQ or RFP calls extra attention to the design-builder that the project’s geo- technical requirements are an important issue to the owner and that a proposal emphasizing these factors will be evalu- ated more favorably. An example is shown by the philoso- phy of the Minnesota Department of Transportation on its Interstate 494 DB project. Instead of including post-award incentives, Minnesota DOT determined that: …certain aspects of the RFP would provide opportunities for the right contractor with the right approach to win the work. To achieve this, RFP selection process included the following: Areas of great importance receive higher scoring weights; Contractor is rewarded in the proposal scoring for exceeding minimum requirements; and Contractor’s past performance is considered during evaluations for future projects (Gladke 2006). UDOT used a similar approach in its DB selection process for the $330 million Legacy Parkway DB project, as follows: On the Legacy project, the management team elected to assign a 50/50 [cost/technical] weighting... This resulted in a heavy emphasis on the technical aspects of the project between the three proposing teams… it was TABLE 17 COMPARISON OF RFQ EVALUATION FACTORS FOUND IN THE SURVEY AND THE CONTENT ANALYSES RFQ Evaluation Factors DOT Survey Responses Content Analyses <5 DB (of 8 total) >5 DB (of 17 total) RFQs (of 8 total) Agency DB guidelines (of 17 total) Specific geotechnical qualifications for key personnel 25% 94% 38% 18% Specific geotechnical project experience required 13% 65% 63% 24% References from past projects with specific geotechnical issues 0% 59% 25% 0% Proof of local geotechnical project experience 25% 53% 13% 18% Geotechnical factors in rated technical evaluation plan* 63% 88% 50% 6% *Many RFQs include a description of the technical evaluation plan, including specific technical factors (in this case, geotechnical factors).

35 apparent that a significantly higher technical proposal score by a particular team could have overcome a higher cost proposal on the order of tens of millions of dollars (Higbee 2004). In light of these quotes, there are two important aspects of the evaluation planning for projects where incorporation of geotechnical factors is key to successful project delivery: 1. Geotechnical evaluation criteria 2. Appropriate weight assigned to critical geotechnical evaluation criteria. Inclusion of evaluation criteria for geotechnical and subsur- face factors needs to be proportionate to the importance of the geotechnical factors in the context of the entire project (MDT 2008). Owners of projects with minimal routine geotechnical requirements often do not complicate the evaluation process by adding specific criteria to evaluate geotechnical factors. This is justified by the notion that all responsive proposals will prob- ably furnish the same response and get the same score. There- fore, evaluating geotechnical factors in this type of project does not measurably add to the determination of the BV (Koch et al. 2010). An example of this type of project is a DB bridge widen- ing where work is restricted largely to the bridge deck. How- ever, geotechnical evaluations are appropriate for most typical highway and bridge projects (Phipps 2000). Table 18 contains a sample of geotechnical evaluation criteria for design-builder qualifications and past experience found during the solicitation document content analysis. All TABLE 18 SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA FOUND IN THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENT CONTENT ANALYSIS Agency Criterion Florida DOT Design and Geotechnical Services Investigations: Credit will be given for the quality of the following elements: – Quality and quantity of design resources – Design coordination (including hydraulic analyses, scour computations, and foundation determinations) and plans preparation schedule – Construction coordination plan minimizing design changes – Geotechnical investigation plan – Test load program – Knowledge of the project area Indiana DOT Demonstrated Experience: Has the Respondent demonstrated its ability to undertake and successfully complete a project of this type and magnitude? Michigan DOT State experience/past performance in the last 10 years with the following: Contaminated soils handling, treatment, and disposal Top down retaining wall construction Auger cast pile Soil nail wall Sheet pile wall Tieback soldier piles Slurry wall construction Fill wall construction MSE walls Concrete cantile Ground improvement Compaction grouting Anchored mesh slope treatments Micropiling Riprap and rock blanket construction on steep slopes Mississippi DOT The Geotechnical Staff shall contain at least one Professional Engineer licensed in the state of Mississippi with a minimum of ten (10) years experience in the design of bridge foundations Montana DOT Demonstrate past experience of Firm members working together on similar type projects, both for construction and engineering services. Provide proof of the Firm members familiarity with geotechnical conditions similar to the project area. North Dakota DOT The Committee shall base its determination upon the following criteria 1. Experience with comparable projects. 2. Managerial resources. 3. Abilities of professional personnel. 4. Past performance 5. ... 9. Knowledge of local or regional conditions. Ohio DOT Previous Design Build projects, similar in nature including cost and schedule to the proposed project, for which the individual has performed a similar function. Give specific information regarding responsibilities on the noted previous projects, and how this experience directly relates to the proposed project. Utah DOT Relevance and strength of qualifications and experience of Key Personnel and other staff that the Proposer offers to assign to the Project (10 pts) Record of Past Performance relating to goals and objectives of the Project (10 pts).

36 had significant geotechnical requirements associated with the project. The table shows that evaluation criteria range from the general criteria used by Indiana to the more com- prehensive criteria used by Michigan. The Michigan project was devoted to slope stabilization and as such was purely geotechnical in nature. Thus, the extensive list of experi- ences was intended to cover the gamut of possible accept- able design solutions without constraining the competitors in a technical sense. The Utah project was a tunnel and had a number of technical evaluation criteria that required spe- cific expertise. As a result, the key personnel’s qualifications were constrained by the technical requirements of the proj- ect, and UDOT did not need to be more explicit in its evalu- ation criteria. Table 19 lists sample technical evaluation criteria that relate to planning and executing the geotechnical portions of a DB projects. Again, the detail expressed in the criteria ranges from general to specific. The Delaware criterion is for a requirement to submit a narrative outlining the various geotechnical risks. Maine’s two criteria aim to set an adjec- tival standard for earning a “superior score.” It has the effect of influencing the competitors into proposing an instrumen- tation program. Florida also telegraphs its preference when it states that credit will be given for the “Test Load Program.” Minnesota uses a different approach by requiring a 5-year warranty for differential settlement and evaluating this cri- terion on a pass/fail basis. In the solicitation document content analysis, 37 of 46 of the project documents explicitly listed some form of evalu- ation criteria for geotechnical factors. More than two-thirds of those 37 projects evaluated the qualifications of the proj- ect’s geotechnical personnel. Next, 62% evaluated the DB firm’s past experience designing and building projects with similar geotechnical requirements. Slightly more than one- third included geotechnical evaluation criteria in the tech- nical and/or price evaluation plan. In the survey response, 94% of experienced and 53% of inexperienced respondents required and evaluated the qualifications of the project’s geo- technical personnel. Past geotechnical experience was rated at 65% and 33%, respectively. In 53% of the experienced DOT responses local experience was also rated, with only 20% of the inexperienced DOTs asking for that information. Geotechnical Factors Weight in the Evaluation Plan Tables 18 and 19 each have one example where a specific number of points were listed. These are examples of how DB evaluation criteria are weighted. The literature (Scott et al. 2006) and solicitation document content analysis found two methods for assigning weight to evaluation criteria. The first is the direct point score. In this method, each evaluation criterion is assigned a specific number of points, with the ratio of individual criterion’s point score to the total available points for the entire evaluation representing its weight or rel- ative importance relative to the other evaluation criteria. The UDOT qualifications criteria in Table 18 were each assigned 10 possible points. The maximum possible point score on this project was 100 points. Thus, qualifications carried 10% of the weight in this evaluation plan. The Table 19 FDOT technical criterion carried 20 points, which gave it a 20% weight in the FDOT 100-point evaluation plan. TABLE 19 SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOUND IN THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENT CONTENT ANALYSIS Agency Criterion Delaware DOT What risks are there to the structural integrity of the approach embankment and MSE walls? Florida DOT Design and Geotechnical Services/Investigations (20 points). Credit will be given for the quality of the following: – Quality and quantity of design resources – Design coordination and plans preparation schedule – Construction coordination plan minimizing design changes – Geotechnical Investigation plan – Test load program – Structure design Maine DOT Superior scores in this category will be awarded to design concepts that: – Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the potential geotechnical challenges associated with the project; – Incorporate an instrumentation program for monitoring structures and soils with consideration for future monitoring of the structures with the same instrumentation by the department during the design life. Minnesota DOT Design-builder must provide 5-year warranties for many features, including but not limited to differen- tial settlement in roadway. Missouri DOT For mechanically stabilized earth walls, the Proposer shall define the wall systems to be used and their associated application criteria. Montana DOT Prepare a proposal outlining a [geotechnical investi- gation] program that will establish various test sites and a testing, instrumentation, and analysis program. The other method corresponds to the weighted criteria method shown in Table 18. The Montana DOT DB guide- lines state, “the award will be based upon stated criteria or evaluation factors; cost will not be the only consideration. The RFP will state the relative importance of all evaluation factors” (MDT 2008). Hence, each evaluation category is assigned a weight consistent with the objectives of the proj- ect, and the score for each evaluation criterion in the cat- egory is summed and then multiplied by the category weight. The sum of the weighted scores in each category is the final score for each proposal, as shown in Table 20. The product of the category weight and its score becomes the category value and the sum of the “weighted criteria values” becomes the

37 overall value (V) for a given proposal for factors other than bid price. This relationship can be expressed as the following equation: V = W1S1 + W2S2 + ….. + WiSi (1) where: V is the nonprice value; Wi is the weight of category i; and Si is the score for criterion i. The survey asked two questions in this vein. The first was whether geotechnical factors were evaluated and the second asked respondents to indicate the relative weight given geotechnical factors versus the rest of the proposal. The results found that 20 of 33 respondents that use DB score geotechnical factors as part of the selection process. Of those 20, 13 assign “minor” (<10%) or “no weight” to the geotechnical factors, 5 give geotechnical factors “some” (11–20%) weight, and only 2 assign “heavy” (>20%) weight. The solicitation document content analysis found that only 4 of 46 documents gave more than 10% weight to geotechnical factors in the published evaluation plans. Two of those are the Florida and Utah examples shown in Table 18. Six FDOT documents were sampled in the content analysis: two had no weight for geotechnical, three assigned minor weights, and one (a bridge project with significant geotechnical issues) assigned heavy weight to the proposed solutions for the geotechnical factors. Based on the seemingly light weight- ing given to geotechnical evaluation criteria found in the survey and the content analysis, one can conclude that the weight of geotechnical factors must be assigned relative to the other factors that define success for a given DB project. Additionally, the variation in geotechnical weight found in the FDOT RFPs confirms that weights are a function of a specific project’s overall requirements and FDOT tailors the relative geotechnical weight as it deems appropriate for each DB project. Alternative Technical Concepts ATCs allow public agencies to “seek innovation from the private sector to help reduce project costs and add technical enhancements” (Papernik and Farkas 2009) without giving up control of the design process. ATCs are generally imple- mented in one of four ways: 1. The agency lists acceptable ATCs in the DB RFP and the competing design-builders select those they want to include in their proposal and price the scope of work including the ATCs. Often proposers are required to furnish two prices: one for the base con- figuration and another for the project including the ATCs (WSDOT 2010). 2. The agency furnishes a pre-proposal period in which competing design-builders can submit ATCs to the agency for review and approval. The individual ATCs are confidential and price proposals are completed including the approved ATCs (Mn/DOT 2003; Cal- trans 2010). 3. The agency allows competing design-builders to submit ATCs to the agency for review and approval at the time of the proposal submission. A compila- tion of adjustments to the proposal price is submitted for the ATCs, with the compilation being submitted in a separate envelope from both the ATC technical proposals and the proposal price. The agency will act upon each ATC based on the technical submission, and will adjust the proposal price for each ATC that is accepted (Texas Turnpike Authority 2001). 4. The process described in #2 is used, but once an ATC is approved, it is added to the RFP and all competing design-builders are allowed to decide whether to use the given ATC in their proposal (FDOT 2011). TABLE 20 EXAMPLE OF WEIGHTED CRITERIA METHOD Evaluation Category Wt Proposal No. 1 Score Weighted Score Proposal No. 2 Score Weighted Score Proposal No. 3 Score Weighted Score Technical 30 4 120 5 150 3 90 Management 5 4 20 3 15 3 15 Traffic Control 5 5 25 4 20 2 10 Personnel 10 4 40 5 50 3 30 Experience 15 4 60 3 45 3 45 Past Performance 15 4 60 4 60 3 45 Schedule 20 4 80 3 60 3 60 Totals 100 405* 400 295 Price $4.4 million $4.3 million $4.0 million 5 = Excellent; 4 = Exceeds Requirement; 3 = Meets Requirement; 2 = Below Requirement but Correctable; 0 = Nonresponsive; *Apparent winning proposal.

38 From a geotechnical perspective, ATCs are a mechanism to manage subsurface risk. Regardless of which method an agency uses to implement ATCs, each alternative will have its own unique risk profile and each competitor is afforded an opportunity to select an alternative that has the lowest per- ceived geotechnical risk. Theoretically, this should reduce the size of contingencies included in the price proposal. Chapter three included a discussion of the use of one-on- one question and answer sessions, sometimes called “pro- prietary meetings,” during proposal preparation to permit competing design-builders to clarify RFP intent and ask ques- tions that might lead to the submission of an ATC. A number of DOTs use these sessions to review and approve ATCs. Table 21 is a synopsis of ATC usage found in the litera- ture. A number of the projects shown in the table gener- ated ATCs that were related to geotechnical aspects. For example, an ATC presented during proposal preparation on the Minnesota DOT Hastings River Bridge DB project (detailed in chapter two) resulted in the “north approach roadway constructed on a column-supported embank- ment, with less than 2 inches of total settlement com- plete within three months of embankment construction” (Behnke and Ames 2010). Caltrans is planning to empha- size the use of geotechnical ATCs during proposal prepa- ration to resolve a number of thorny subsurface, seismic, and environmental issues on the Gerald Desmond Bridge project (Thiessen 2010). All three of the primary research instruments looked for the use of ATCs. Figure 2 illustrates the results. It must be noted that the survey specifically asked whether geo- technical-specific ATCs were allowed. The figure shows that the experienced DOTs routinely include ATCs and the ones new to DB do not. Since the two population samples are roughly equal in size (17 and 15, respectively) this becomes a significant difference. There is no explanation for the result and therefore, it identifies a gap in the body of knowledge for DOTs with little or no DB experience. Consequently, the finding leads to a suggestion for future research to quantify the benefits of geotechnical ATCs on DB projects, which can be made available to agencies that are new to alternative project delivery methods. The sug- gestion is further reinforced by the two content analyses, which both found that around half the population did not include this tool to reduce risk and enhance innovation in their text. TABLE 21 ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPT USE Agency DB Project Project Value Remarks Literature Citation California DOT Gerald Desmond Bridge $950 million Confidential one-on-one meetings; approved ATCs could be furnished to the winning proposer for use Thiessen (2010) Florida DOT I-595 Corridor Improvements $1.8 billion Confidential one-on-one meetings; approved ATCs could be furnished to the winning proposer for use Papernik and Farkas (2009) Maryland State High- way Administration Intercounty Connector $2.5 billion Confidential one-on-one meetings; ATCs submit- ted for review and approval Papernik and Farkas (2009) Minnesota DOT Hastings Bridge $120 million Confidential one-on-one meetings Behnke and Ames (2010) Mississippi DOT Airport Parkway $500 million Confidential ATCs submitted for review and approval Papernik and Farkas (2009) Missouri DOT I-270/Dorsett Rd. Interchange $20 million Confidential one-on-one meetings; approved ATCs could be furnished to the winning proposer for use Schnell et al. (2008) North Carolina Trans- portation Authority Mid-Currituck Bridge $250 million Confidential one-on-one meetings; approved ATCs could be furnished to the winning proposer for use Papernik and Farkas (2009) Orange County Trans- portation Authority SR-22 Reconstruction/ Widening $300 million Confidential ATCs submitted for review and approval Papernik and Farkas (2009) Texas DOT IH-635 Managed Lanes $2.7 billion Confidential ATCs submitted for review and approval; approved ATCs could be furnished to the winning proposer for use Papernik and Farkas (2009) Utah DOT Pioneer Crossing $180 million Confidential ATCs submitted for review and approval; approved ATCs could be furnished to the winning proposer for use Walker and Haines (2010) Virginia DOT US Route 460 $1.5 billion Confidential ATCs submitted for review and approval Papernik and Farkas (2009) Washington State DOT I-405, 112th Ave SE to SE 8th St. Widening $125 million Confidential one-on-one meetings; ATCs submitted for review and approval; approved ATCs could be furnished to the winning proposer for use Carpenter (2010)

39 FIGURE 2 Research instrument output regarding alternative technical concept use. FDOT describes the purpose of ATCs as follows: “The ATC process allows innovation, flexibility, time and cost savings on the design and construction of Design/Build proj- ects. ATC’s allow the Department to obtain the best value for the public” (FDOT 2011). The Minnesota DOT states, “ATCs have successfully been used on a variety of projects to generate innovative ideas and cost saving” (Mn/DOT 2003). ATCs have proven to be so effective that a number of DOTs joined in a request to the FHWA to allow the ATC process to substitute for the mandatory value engineering analysis required before advertising a DB project (Paper- nik and Farkas 2010). Given the above discussion and the information found in the literature, one can conclude that the ATC process is a viable approach to reducing perceived geotechnical risks by allowing competing design-builders to propose design solutions with which they have both experi- ence and confidence. The nearly unanimous use of confi- dential one-on-one meetings to discuss, review, and approve ATCs before DB proposals are submitted indicates that this is an effective practice used by many DOTs with multiple DB project delivery experience. CONTRACTOR’S PERSPECTIVE When asked to rate the impact of various components of the selection process during the procurement process on project quality from a geotechnical perspective, 91% of the design- builders indicated that qualifications of their geotechnical design and construction staff had a high or very high impact. Past project experience was rated high or very high by 82% of the interviewees, and 82% believed that the clarity of the owner’s requirements for QM plans and processes also had a major impact. However, six indicated that finding qualified geotechnical personnel to meet DOT RFQ standards was challenging on all DB projects, and four had difficulty on some projects. More than half of the contractors stated that they developed their proposals with the idea that they would not be able to use their preferred approaches to geotechnical design and construction either because of specific exclusion in the RFP or because they sensed that the owner’s person- nel would not relinquish control of the process. The con- tractors’ remedy was to increase the proposal contingency accordingly. CONCLUSIONS The analyses discussed in this chapter resulted in the follow- ing conclusions: • The qualifications of the geotechnical designers and the past experience with geotechnical projects of com- panies that make up the DB team are key to achieving quality in the constructed DB project. • Addressing geotechnical issues early in the DB pro- curement process is important. • 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. Additionally, the following effective practices were iden- tified in this chapter: • The relative geotechnical weight can be tailored as appropriate for each DB project in a manner similar to that used by the FDOT. • DOTs across the nation have effectively used confi- dential one-on-one meetings to discuss, review, and approve ATCs before DB proposals are submitted. The following suggestions for future research are made: • Guidance is needed on how to effectively address and evaluate how geotechnical factors can be developed and incorporated into DOT DB guidelines. The research would elaborate on the value of including geotechnical technical evaluation factors in the DB project’s RFQ to encourage competing design-builders to team with highly qualified geotechnical 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 factual performance information to assist them in determining whether or not ATCs are attractive in their markets.