Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods (2009)

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.

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects CHAPTER 3 – CASE STUDY PROJECTS Background Based on the results of the literature review, the research team began its case study data collection. The team proposed to identify and analyze at least six projects from across the spectrum of project delivery methods. The team was able to identify and gain access to information on nine projects worth more than $3.0 billion that represent the cross-section of delivery methods. In fact, the Silver Line project in Boston is a Design-Bid-Build/Multi-Prime project, which while it is not a different delivery method, was not a variation on DBB project delivery that was contemplated in the original proposal. Additionally, another enhancement to the original research plan was realized when the team was able to identify projects from more than one delivery method completed by the same agency. Thus, the depth and validity of the interviews were enhanced by permitting the interviewers to gain information that compared and contrasted the benefits and constraints of several delivery methods from a single source. Table 3.1 is a summary of the case study projects that were sampled for this research. One can see that the projects span from coast to coast and include two major metropolitan areas in the Rocky Mountain area as well. Northeastern University The Research Report 23

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-1 - Summary of Case Study Projects Case # Project Agency/Location Project Delivery Method Project Contract Amount (Original/Actual) Completion Date (Original/Actual) 1 T-REX (Southeast Corridor Light Rail) Regional Transportation District/ Denver, CO Design- Build $849/$940* million *Scope added after award 7 yrs/ 5 yrs – 3 mos 2 Weber County Commuter Rail Utah Transit Agency/ Salt Lake City to Ogden, UT CM-at- Risk $196/$241* million *Scope added after award 6 yrs/ 5 yrs-6 mos 3 University Line Utah Transit Agency/ Salt Lake City, UT Design- Build $124/118.5 million 2 yrs-2 mos/ 1 yr-5 mos 4 Medical Center Extension Utah Transit Agency/ Salt Lake City, UT Design- Build $95/89.4 million. 2 yrs-2 mos/ 1 yr-5 mos 5 Greenbush Commuter Rail Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority/ Boston, MA Design- Build $252/$300 million 3 yrs/ 5yrs* *Delay due to wetland permits 6 Hudson Bergen Light Rail New Jersey Transit Authority/ Hudson, NJ Design- Build- Operate- Maintain $554/$611 million 6 yrs / 6yrs-2 mos 7 Silver Line Project Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority/ Boston, MA Design- Bid-Build Multi- Prime $601/$604.4 million 4 yrs/ 8yrs* *Delays due to Big Dig project 8 Portland Mall Project TriMet/ Portland OR CM-at- Risk $143.8/143.8 million 4 yrs/4yrs 9 I-205 Light Rail Extension Project TriMet/ Portland OR Design- Build $163.8/$163.8 million 4 yrs/4yrs Case Study Collection Methodology The research team used the case study method described by Yin (1994) to furnish a rigorous methodology for collecting the data from the projects shown in Table 3.1. Yin maintains that planning the process of accessing and collecting data is essential preparation for efficiently and accurately collecting cogent information. Additionally, it is equally important to carefully select cases that can be compared directly with one another and also offer cross-sectional diversity. The selected sample fulfills this requirement in that there are five Design-Build (DB) projects from four different agencies and two Construction Manager-at-Risk (CMR) projects from two different agencies. The Design-Bid-Build (DBB)/Multi-Prime project is actually composed of a series of DBB projects undertaken by the same agency. It was chosen to permit the evaluation of this DBB-hybrid technique. The Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) project is the only project for which there is no direct comparison. Nevertheless, its DB component can be reliably compared with the five other DB projects without loss of accuracy. Northeastern University The Research Report 24

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Northeastern University The Research Report 25 While the collection of cases needs to cover the project delivery method spectrum in this research, it is “important that the participant pool remain relatively small” (Colorado State University, 2006). Although fewer cases can sometimes lead to unsubstantiated research conclusions based on the probability of atypical case selections, it provides a better opportunity to examine each case in detail without becoming too cumbersome. The sample used here appears to be representative for the various project delivery methods that do not involve post-construction operations and maintenance. DBOM is a delivery method that is not common to the US and therefore that post-construction aspects of the Hudson-Bergen project must be viewed as a single point of data and no attempt will be made to generalize observations and conclusions from that project in this report. Even for DBOM, we have identified two other major projects with New Jersey Transit5that were used in the development of the Guidebook. Determining quantitative data, rather than qualitative, is vital to prioritizing needed information. Quantitative data offers factual data that is not subjective, which creates greater viability to the research and potential conclusions. Although case studies have the ability to provide distinctive data that can expand analysis and future results, data points (objectives) sought using the case study should complement other applied research methods to strengthen the overall research (Yin 1994). Thus, to achieve this goal, the structured interviews used to methodically collect case study data included quantitative data points regarding scope, financial and schedule information on each project. This data allows the comparison of the projects on an objective basis and permits the trends identified from the qualitative data to be validated or refuted by the quantitative data. Table 2.1 summarizes the quantitative cost and schedule data and one can see that all but three of the projects either finished or are on track to finish ahead of schedule. The Hudson-Bergen project finished just two months late; given the size and complexity of this project, this was a remarkable achievement. Thanks to the structured interview methodology, the delays observed on the two projects with significant delays were explained as being caused by external factors and not attributable to the project delivery method. In the same vein, five of the projects experienced cost overruns. However, on two projects (T-REX and Weber County), cost growth was explained by the agency’s decision to add scope to the project after award. Thus, the evaluation of the project delivery method for those two was validated by the detailed explanation that was obtained via structured interview. These examples not only demonstrate the value of the selected data collection method but also lend authority to the trends and emerging conclusions that will be offered later in this report. Case Study Matrix The following section contains a standardized matrix which displays the salient information on each case study project in the same fashion to permit ease of understanding and comparison. The matrix consists of the following components: 1. Project identification data: Qualitative 2. Project scope data: Quantitative 3. Project financial and schedule data: Quantitative 5 The first phase of Hudson-Bergen Project with a cost of $1.2m is one project where DBOM was used. Also, the South Jersey Light Rail, also known as “River Line” was another DBOM project that was built exclusively with state funds.

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects 4. Project delivery method decision rationale: Qualitative 5. Project issue data: Qualitative 6. Project risk analysis process data: Qualitative 7. Project procurement process data: Quantitative 8. Quality management data: Qualitative In addition to the data obtained using the structured interview questionnaire, detailed notes of the interviews were taken and used to furnish the basis for explanatory details on the standard questionnaire responses. Both the results of the questionnaire and the explanatory notes will be consolidated and assigned to an appendix in the final report of this research. As a whole, the interviews went very well with the minimum of inconsistencies. In all cases, the interviews were conducted with members of the agency’s project delivery team for each project. In order to achieve this, the team had to track down two project managers who had retired. Thus, the information collected was received first hand. Project scope data that was collected at the interview was validated by data obtained in the literature review which comprises Yin’s “converging lines of information” and the “use of multiple sources.” Multiple sources help alleviate lack of trust, increase viability, and frequently provide supplementary realms of thought and research that strengthens results. “Case studies are likely to be much more convincing and accurate if they are based on several different sources of information, following a corroborating mode” (Colorado State University, 2006). This goal was achieved in all cases. The remainder of this section contains the specific case study data collected for each project displayed in the standard matrix format. The format is a synthesis of the structured interview questionnaire output in a manner that permits both comparison and contrast. The cases are grouped by agency with multiple projects from the same agency being listed consecutively in the order shown in Table 3.1. Northeastern University The Research Report 26

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 1 — TREX Project Information Project Name: Southeast Corridor Light Rail Name of Agency: Regional Transportation District (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Denver, Colorado Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The new line expands the Regional Transportation District's (RTD) existing light rail system and extends light rail service along the southeast corridor of I-25 and I-225. An extensive bus feeder system makes it easy for people to get to and from the 13 new light rail stations. Bridges and underpasses provide pedestrian access to several of the stations. The Southeast Corridor Light Rail includes: • 19 miles of completely grade-separated, double-track light rail to RTD's existing system • Extension of light rail from the current station at I-25 and Broadway, along the west side of I-25 to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County and in the median of I-225 to Parker Road in Aurora • 13 light rail stations with park-n-Rides at 12 of the stations • 6,000 parking spaces at park-n-Rides • Unique functional public art elements at each of the 13 new stations • 34 light rail vehicles to RTD's fleet • New light rail maintenance facility where the fleet will be maintained, cleaned and inspected (already complete) • A state-of-the-art communications system at a centralized control center for continuous monitoring and control of all rail operations Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $849 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $940 million (note: RTD increased scope of work after award) Project Schedule: Initial Advertising: RFQ in March 2000 RFP Issued to Shortlist: November 2000 Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 7 years (June 2008) Final Project Delivery Period: 5 years 3 months (September 2006) Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects Northeastern University The Research Report 27

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Top leadership decision making. The decision was made from the governor’s office and the top management of RTD and CDOT. This was a unique procurement in that aspect. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Encourage innovation Redistribute risk Complex project requirements Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method None Table 3-2 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -Agency goals & objectives -Benefits & impacts -Fed/State/ Local laws* None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *New DB law had to be passed for the project Life cycle issues did not enter into the decision Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Competition* -DBE/small business impact Stakeholder/ community input None Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *Short list had three, but only two bidders submitted final proposals Summary Remarks Many DB benefits were accrued including a significantly faster schedule, a reduction in claims and a partnering atmosphere. DB did create some issues on third party impacts during construction due to speed of the project. A lesson learned on stations was that design of the stations happened somewhat after the contract award and the local stakeholders did not get the degree of input that they might otherwise have. Northeastern University The Research Report 28

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Contracting risk analysis done in conjunction with the project team and legal advisors. Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment only Risk Management Techniques: Not used Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk matrix Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-3 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager No Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Evaluated as part of quality plan Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Evaluated as part of quality plan Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Evaluated as part of quality plan Design quality management plan Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance Yes Outline specifications No Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Design criteria checklists • Standard design details • Standard guide specifications • Construction testing matrix Northeastern University The Research Report 29

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-4 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 9 Table 3-5 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals* 9 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 Checking of pay quantities** 9 9 Routine construction inspection*** 9 9 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 9 Verification/acceptance testing**** 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 * DB QA Staff performed a pre-review of the submittals. **Paid based on progress of percent complete for each work item by work breakdown structure. *** Did not call it inspection, but rather called it auditing. QA/QC was with the contractor. Auditing only by the owner. DB Contractor also did do the bulk of the QA/QC inspection. ****See previous note on routine construction inspection. Northeastern University The Research Report 30

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different from the ones used in traditional DBB projects: • The design-builder is responsible for QA/QC and owner established an extensive quality oversight program audit system and a quality requirements database. All the requirements from the contract were in the database and documented a both conforming and nonconforming. The database consisted of approximately 5,000 items. One system encompassed both design and construction QA/QC. • Minimum QA/QC plan content was specified. The design-builder had to be ISO 9000 certified within one year. Draft design and construction QA/QC plans were submitted in the DB proposal and these items were evaluated. These were two of the ten evaluation factors and made the proposers aware of the importance of quality management to the project Use of mandated agency quality management plans: None. However, key personal were evaluated in submittals required by both the RFQ and RFP. Any replacements had to be approved. However, the philosophy was not to try to manage personnel, but rather examine processes and performance. Northeastern University The Research Report 31

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 2 — Weber County Commuter Rail Project Information Project Name: Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail Project Name of Agency: Utah Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Weber County, Utah (project extends from Ogden to Salt Lake City) Delivery Method: Construction Manager-at-Risk (UTA uses the term CM/GC) Project Description The alignment begins in downtown Salt Lake City at the Inter-modal Hub and extends north along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way through Davis and Weber Counties, passing on new elevated structures over the Ogden Yard continuing north of Union Station in Ogden to Pleasant View, UT. There are presently three freight sidings (industry tracks) from the UPRR mainline track crossing the commuter rail tracks. Grade crossings and grade crossing protective devices for the commuter rail line are also being constructed or reconstructed as needed. The Weber County Commuter Rail includes: • 44 miles of new transitway using single track with sections of double track at key locations to provide bypass capability. • 8 stations, including the Inter-modal Hub in Salt Lake City, which is being constructed under a different project. • Plans to have the rail line connect to bus transit at all stations; the line will also connect to the TRAX Light Rail system, interstate bus service and Amtrak at the Salt Lake City Inter-modal Hub. • All stations, including the downtown Salt Lake City Inter-modal Hub, are planned to include Park and Ride capabilities. • Increased fleet to 11 locomotives and 35 passenger vehicles • Upgrade of an existing maintenance facility and storage site at the former Union Pacific Diesel Maintenance Shop and Yard located in Salt Lake City immediately adjacent to the UPRR Main Line and the UTA-acquired right-of-way, to serve to maintain the Commuter Rail fleet. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (CMR contract): $196 million [Total project estimated budget $541 million] Final Total Awarded Value of project: $241 million (note: UTA increased scope of work after award and includes $550,000 Preconstruction Services fee for CM*) [Currently total project budget is $611.6 million (FFGA)] Project Schedule: Preliminary design contract award: 2002 Initial Advertising: 2004 Final design contract award: 2005 Construction contract award: June 2005 Original Project Delivery Period: 6 years Final Project Delivery Period: 5 years 6 months Northeastern University The Research Report 32

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Expected completion (revenue operation date): September 30, 2008 *Proposed preconstruction services fees ranged from $550K (winner) to $3.0 million Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Convened a workshop that evaluated each possible project delivery method against stated project goals. Conducted formal risk analysis based on input from both the design and construction communities. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Dealing with railroad safety requirements on shared/adjacent ROW Establish project budget at an early stage of design development #2 Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Flexibility needs during construction phase Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose CMR to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-6 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Schedule -Cost -Stakeholder coordination* -Agency experience -Staffing required -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -Agency control of project -Third party agreements -Other * -Competition -DBE/small business impact -Benefits & impacts -Fed/State/ Local laws* -Stakeholder/ community input -Maintain- ability -Construction claims* -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *Stake holder coordination a big benefit of CMR * Expedites funding with FTA *New DB law had to be passed for the project Sustainability was not considered on this project * “HUGE” benefit…..no claims on the project so far. Northeastern University The Research Report 33

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Risk allocation -Labor unions -FTA/EPA regulations. None Remarks on Above Constraints Summary Remarks Sustainability will be considered in the future projects. CMR project delivery would be judged as beneficial for future projects with sustainability requirements. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Project Scope, Schedule, Cost and Contracting Risk Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, Scenario Planning, and Expert Interviews Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment using expert panel with stakeholders included Evaluated project risks versus project goals Quantitative risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation and expected value analysis. Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk mitigation plan used to draft special payment clauses to allocate risk for flagging during construction to comply with RR safety requirements, subcontractor payment, and unsuitable subgrade. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-7 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Quality management roles and responsibilities Northeastern University The Research Report 34

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-8 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM pre- construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 Cost engineering reviews 9 9 Constructability reviews 9 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 9 Table 3-9 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 9 Routine construction inspection 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 35

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. CMR manages the quality management program Use of mandated agency quality management plans: UTA requires the CMR to develop and implement a plan that is in accordance with its standard QA/QC guidelines including a standard set of qualifications for the CMR’s quality management staff. Also mandates the use of standard design details for system compatibility purposes. Northeastern University The Research Report 36

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 3 — University Line Project Information Project Name: University Line Light Rail Project Name of Agency: Utah Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The University line expanded the Regional Transportation District's existing TRAX light rail system that connected downtown Salt Lake City with the southern suburb of Sandy and extended light rail service Main Street with Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah using existing right-of-way. The existing bus feeder system will make it easy for people to get to and from the 4 new light rail platforms. Bridges provide pedestrian access to several of the stations. The University Line Light Rail project includes: • 2.3-mile overhead catenary branch line, connecting Main Street with Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah. • 4 light rail platforms • Brought UTA’s fleet to a total of 33 light rail vehicles. • Furnished transit service for the 2002 Winter Olympics Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $124 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $118.5 million Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2000 DB Project Advertised: 2000 Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 2 years 2 months* Final Project Delivery Period: 1 year 5 months* *Combined time for this and Medical Center Extension Project Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Convened a workshop that evaluated each possible project delivery method against stated project goals. Conducted formal risk analysis based on input from both the design and construction communities. Northeastern University The Research Report 37

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Flexibility needs during construction phase Complex schedule that had to be done by the 2002 Winter Olympics Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose DB to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-10 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -Competition -DBE/small business impact -Stakeholder/ community input None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits Sustainability issues were not considered nor required No construction claims on this project Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Fed/State/ Local laws* -Labor unions -FTA/EPA regulations. None None Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *New DB law had to be passed for the project Summary Remarks Schedule considerations drove this project’s delivery method selection. Northeastern University The Research Report 38

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Project Schedule Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, Scenario Planning, Expert Interviews Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment only; discussed schedule options and risks in detail Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk assignment in contract, mainly clarifying those risks that the owner would retain. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-11 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • None listed on questionnaire Table 3-12 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 39

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Approval of construction documents 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-13 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 9 Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. The design- builder had more responsibility for QA/QC. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Established a standard for the primary quality manager’s qualifications. Northeastern University The Research Report 40

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 4 — Medical Center Extension Project Information Project Name: Medical Center Extension Light Rail Project Name of Agency: Utah Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The Medical Center Extension line continued the expansion of the Regional Transportation District's existing TRAX light rail system that connected downtown Salt Lake City with the southern suburb of Sandy and extended light rail service to the University of Utah Health Sciences Center from Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah using existing right-of-way. The existing bus feeder system will make it easy for people to get to and from the 3 new light rail stations. Bridges provide pedestrian access to several of the stations. Of particular interest in the design of the new extension was the priority given to transit in traffic management techniques to ensure high-quality service. Motorists will have to navigate through what is described as a "large roundabout" at the intersection of South Campus and Campus Center drives, a traffic feature already in operation for several months prior to the opening of the line. The roundabout, fortified with several gates, is cited by UTA officials as the only one in the country with trains running through it. The Medical Center Extension Light Rail consists of: • 1.5-mile overhead catenary branch line, connecting Main Street with Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah. • 3 new light rail stations. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $95 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $89.4 million Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2000 DB Project Advertised: 2000 Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 2 years 2 months* Final Project Delivery Period: 1 year 5 months* *Combined time for this and University Line Project Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Northeastern University The Research Report 41

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Convened a workshop that evaluated each possible project delivery method against stated project goals. Conducted formal risk analysis based on input from both the design and construction communities. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Flexibility needs during construction phase Complex schedule that had to be done by the 2002 Winter Olympics Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose DB to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-14 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -Competition -DBE/small business impact -Stakeholder/ community input None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits Sustainability issues were not considered nor required No construction claims on this project Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Fed/State/ Local laws* -Labor unions -FTA/EPA regulations. None None Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *New DB law had to be passed for the project Summary Remarks Schedule considerations drove this project’s delivery method decision. Northeastern University The Research Report 42

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Project Schedule Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, Scenario Planning, Expert Interviews Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment only; discussed schedule options and risks in detail Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk assignment in contract, mainly clarifying those risks that the owner would retain. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-15 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • None listed on questionnaire Northeastern University The Research Report 43

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-16 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-17 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 9 Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. The design- builder has more responsibility for QA/QC Northeastern University The Research Report 44

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Established a standard for the primary quality manager’s qualifications. Northeastern University The Research Report 45

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 5 — Greenbush Commuter Rail Project Information Project Name: Greenbush Commuter Rail Project (Braintree to Scituate, Massachusetts) Name of Agency: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Boston, Massachusetts Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description Greenbush is the first Design-Build project undertaken by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). The design-builder was given a conceptual design and was required to complete the design and furnish the construction according to performance based specification supplied by the owner. This commuter rail line “begins at the connection with the existing MBTA Old Colony Main Line at the Braintree Wye in East Braintree” and goes through the towns of Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Cohasset and Scituate in heavily settled area in Massachusetts. Project experienced a two year delay (as-planned duration was 3 years while the actual duration is 5 years) due to Mass DEP Wetlands permits not being issued prior to design-build contract award. Another major delaying factor was property acquisition with respect to CSX (private railroad company) land. The Greenbush Commuter Rail project will: • Form 18 miles in a corridor of “former New Haven Railroad Greenbush Branch to the terminus in the Greenbush section of Scituate.” • Build 7 new commuter rail stations. • Provide approximately 3,000 parking spaces along the corridor. • Be a “quiet zone”. • Start operating in 2007 according to the schedule. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (DB contract): $252 million Final Total Awarded Value of project (DB contract): $300+ million; currently total project budget exceeds $512 million. Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2001 DB Project Advertised: 2002 Contract Award: June 2002 Original Project Delivery Period: 3 years Final Project Delivery Period: 5 years* *2 year delay due to wetlands permits and rising project costs. Expected completion date: May 2007 (Actual completion date: September 2007) Northeastern University The Research Report 46

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: none Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: MBTA decided to aggressively press for early completion of this project. In their words: “Force the project along! We would have been designing forever with all the towns involved in this project.” Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Encourage price competition (bidding process) Redistribute risk Flexibility needs during construction phase Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce issues were considered in the project delivery method decision. Northeastern University The Research Report 47

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-18 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Risk management -Risk allocation* -Agency goals & objectives -Sustainable design/goals -Sustainable construction/ goals Remarks on Above Benefits *All risk was more or less transferred to contractor. Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Fed/State/ Local laws* -FTA/EPA regulations.* None -Construction claims* -Adversarial relationship between project participants** -Specs need to be more explicit Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *Lots of problems with State/Local laws and EPA regulations *Contractor has put in a lot of claims, claiming “scope change.” ** Adversarial relationships existed, even within DB team Summary Remarks Lack of prescriptive specs has caused MBTA to not get exactly things that they wanted. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: None Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: None Risk Assessment Techniques: None Risk Management Techniques: None Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: None Northeastern University The Research Report 48

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-19 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Proposed schedule Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Design submittals Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Standard guide specifications Table 3-20 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 9 9 Table 3-21 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 Review of construction 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 49

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects schedule Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Essentially the same as the ones used in traditional DBB projects. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Northeastern University The Research Report 50

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 6 — Hudson Bergen Light Rail Project Information Project Name: Hudson Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) Minimum Operable Segment (MOS)2 Name of Agency: New Jersey Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Hudson, New Jersey Delivery Method: Design-Build-Operate-Maintain Project Description The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System (HBLRTS) is a 20.3-mile light rail project that connects the densely populated New Jersey’s Hudson River waterfront communities. The project also supports significant economic development that continues to take place in the region. The HBLRTS is being built in three Minimum Operable Segments (MOS). The first Minimum Operable Segment (MOS1) runs from 34th Street in Bayonne to Hoboken Terminal. MOS2 runs from Hoboken Terminal to Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen, with an additional southern extension to 22nd St. in Bayonne. MOS3 will run from 22nd St. to 8th St. in Bayonne. Project budget/cost is as follows: MOS1: $992 million MOS2: $1.2 billion MOS3: $89 million HBLRTS is funded by a combination of federal and state transportation funds. Construction of MOS1 and MOS2 is complete and operational. Design work for MOS3 is underway. Design work for MOS3 is scheduled for completion in January 2008. The DBOM contract for the MOS 2 consisted of: • Six miles of tracks including a 4100 foot tunnel with station access to street level 160 ft above the Hudson Bergen Light Rail. • Seven new light rail stations. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $554 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $611 million Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2000 DB Project Advertised: N/A; this was issued as a change order to the MOS1 DBOM contract Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 6 years Final Project Delivery Period: 6 year 2 months Northeastern University The Research Report 51

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: None Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; <10% of typical budget Design-Build-Operate-Maintain: 1 to 5 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: At the beginning the project was supposed to be a part of FTA turnkey demonstration but NJ transit decided not to do so. Another option was DBB. However, the agency felt that DBOM was an effective way to push the project through in the face of issues from various towns and third party stakeholders. If the project used the traditional DBB, there were many more stages where opposition from various parties could have delayed the project and possibly prevented its construction. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Redistribute risk Complex project requirements Reduce life cycle costs (by integrating operations and maintenance) Provide mechanism for follow-on operations and/or maintenance Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose DB to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-22 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation* -Schedule -Cost -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -DBE/small business impact* -Life cycle cost Maintainability -Construction claims* Remarks on Above Benefits *Fewer claims about differing site conditions. * DBE goals in the RFP were achieved successfully. 50% subcontracting was mandated to ensure participation by local contractors. *Fewer claims about differing site conditions. It can be great or terrible based on the characteristics of the contractor Northeastern University The Research Report 52

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Staffing required* -Agency control of project** -Third party agreement*** -Competition* -Fed/State/ Local laws** None None Remarks on Above Constraints *Less staff employed because O&M was out sourced. The agency did not have a CM which proved to be a disadvantage. ** Agency had less control but that was not necessarily bad in this project. ***Third party agreements (real estate and utilities) were similar to ones used for DBB. *Tying OM to DB reduces the # of bidders in general. There were 2 final bidders for this project. **Enough design should be done so that the owner can get the permits not the DB contractor. DBOM helped the project push through. Summary Remarks Another advantage of DBOM was that at the time of the agreement between all the parties, the maximum level of contractual obligation is signed. In other words, all parties have obligated themselves not only for the construction but also for 15 years of O&M. This decreases the probability of facing barriers in different steps of project life cycle and facilitates the O&M specially because there is no need to ask for O&M budget annually. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: None Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, cost ranges were developed, but no modeling. Independent cost estimates were prepared by an outsider after the bids were opened. Risk Assessment Techniques: None Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: White papers were prepared and reviewed by industry who provided input. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Northeastern University The Research Report 53

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-23 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance No With 15-year O&M contract, no need was felt. Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Design criteria checklists (Manual of Design Criteria) • Standard design details • Standard guide specifications Table 3-24 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 54

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-25 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 9 9 Routine construction inspection 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Similar to the ones used in traditional DBB projects. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: specify what must be included in the design-builder’s QA/QC plan. Northeastern University The Research Report 55

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 7 — Silver Line Project Project Information Project Name: Silver Line Busway/South Boston Piers Transitway Phase II. Name of Agency: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Boston, Massachusetts Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build Multi-Prime with MBTA acting as its own CM Project Description This project is the second phase of a three-phase Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in Boston, MA. The first phase, completed in 2002, consists of at-grade dedicated lanes along Washington Street in downtown Boston with seven stations. Phase II is an underground BRT connecting the MBTA’s rapid transit system at South Station to the South Boston Piers area. It consists of an underground tunnel and three stations, two of those, underground. Phase III is in planning stages and will be an extension of the Phase II tunnel. The Phase II project utilized the NATM mined excavation and ground freezing and mini-piping support under historic buildings in downtown Boston including the Russia Wharf complex. There was also a cut-and-cover tunnel section. The Buses are electric and the tunnel is designed such that it can be converted into Light Rail Transit in the future. Part of the project was executed in coordination with the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) highway project. The Silver Line project will: • Provide dedicated lanes in downtown Boston • Build 7 new bus transit stations at grade for the dedicated lane portion. • Provide 1.5 mile two-way underground tunnel to South Boston Piers area • Build 3 new stations for the South Boston Piers portion; 2 are underground. • Include 32 dual mode hybrid diesel-electric buses • Build a new vehicle maintenance facility. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $601 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $604.4 million Project Schedule (NOTE: due to multi-prime DBB delivery, there were several design and construction packages. The dates shown below are for the program as a whole): Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 1993 First Design/Construction Project Advertised: 1996 Original Project Delivery Period: 4 years Final Project Delivery Period: 8 years* *delays due to attributed to coordination problems with the Central Artery/Tunnel (Big Dig) project. The budget was also amended during the project. Northeastern University The Research Report 56

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: none Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Because of the regulations of the state of Massachusetts, the only delivery system available to MBTA was DBB at the time of Silverline. This was a multi-prime project and both the design and the construction of the project were divided to several parts. The MBTA personnel were in charge of coordination of these pieces. A consultant was retained as the master planner and master schedule developer of the project and remained on board during project execution. It should be mentioned that the owner supplied some long-lead items (these were major permanent equipment pieces such as large fans, etc) in this project. MBTA also did some of the quality control tests by its own employees Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) The only method available at the time (alternative project delivery had not yet been authorized) Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce issues were considered in the project delivery method decision. Table 3-26 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Agency experience -Agency goals & objectives -Agency control of project* -DBE/small business impact -Labor Unions -Fed/State/ Local laws -FTA/EPA regulations -Life cycle costs* -Maintain- ability Remarks on Above Benefits *All risk was more or less transferred to contractor. *Benefit of DBB is giving a high level of control to the owner. This is not achieved in DB nor in CMR *No sustainable development issues were seriously considered. Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Schedule* -Staffing required -Staff capability -Competition* None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project Northeastern University The Research Report 57

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects participants Remarks on Above Constraints *Schedule shortening was not a priority for this project. The deadline for revenues could be met by phasing the construction and dividing the project and using multiple primes. * Timing was unfortunate as the CA/T Project was using all available talent in the area. Because of Big Dig everyone was busy, competition not high. Summary Remarks Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Only for the Russia Wharf, the most complex portion of project Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, scenario planning, and expert interviews (not conducted as formal processes) Risk Assessment Techniques: None Risk Management Techniques: None Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: None Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-27 - Procurement Phase Summary (NOTE: as DBB project, the next table applies only to the design contracts on this project) Required Elements of the Design Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP) None. MBTA has its own design groups that has electrical, mechanical, track, and signal subgroups. Northeastern University The Research Report 58

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-28 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Agency-hired design consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-29 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s staff Builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: These were a traditional DBB projects. Northeastern University The Research Report 59

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design consultants and construction contractors to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Used standards agency specifications and details Northeastern University The Research Report 60

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 8 — Portland Mall Light Rail Project Information Project Name: Portland Mall Light Rail Project Name of Agency: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Portland, Oregon Delivery Method: Construction Manager-at-Risk (Tri-Met uses the term CM/GC) Project Description The alignment loops the Portland Mall area from the Portland State University campus in the south to Union Station in the north. This project converts a bus transit mall to a multi-modal facility that incorporates the light rail, bus, auto lanes, and dedicated bicycle lanes. Grade crossings and grade crossing protective devices for the commuter rail line are also being constructed or reconstructed as needed. The Portland Mall Light Rail Project will include: • 2 miles of in-street light rail, plus additional lanes for buses, four auto pullouts for business delivery services and auto and bike access in left-side lanes separated by a rumble strip to ensure safe service. • 14 stations and bus stops. • Improvements to the Burnside intersections at 5th and 6th avenues will enhance traffic flow on these two streets. • Revitalize the Mall for retail businesses, pedestrians, cyclists and autos by renovating the streetscape and adding amenities, art and upgraded shelters. • 24 new light rail vehicles (with I-205 Extension project) (not part of the CM/GC contract). Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (CMR contract): $143.8 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $143.8 million (note: includes $846,000 Preconstruction Services fee for CM) Project Schedule: Preliminary design contract award: 2004 Initial Advertising: May 2005 Final design contract award: October 2005 Construction contract award: June 2005 Original Project Delivery Period: 4 years Final Project Delivery Period: 4 years Expected completion (revenue operation date): September 30, 2009 Northeastern University The Research Report 61

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 6 to 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Developed a pro forma. Examined it and established public findings with regard to project complexity. Applied for and received a state exemption from low bid requirements. Input from internal sources only. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Complex project requirements Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Redistribute risk Flexibility needs during construction phase Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce reasons were involved in the selection decision. Table 3-30 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Site* -Agency experience -Staffing required -Agency goals & objectives -Agency control of project -Third party agreements* -DBE/small business impact -Benefits & impacts -Stakeholder/ community input - Sustainable construction/ goals* -Construction claims* -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *Complex urban site coordination a big benefit * TriMet does its own permits and ROW *Sustainability was not considered on this project * No claims on the project. Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Staff capability* -Competition* -Fed/State/ Local laws** -FTA/EPA regulations. None Lack of competition on self-performed work—track work. Remarks on *Lacked CMR *Lack of Northeastern University The Research Report 62

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Above Constraints experience competition on track-work **Need state waiver from low bid reg. Summary Remarks Very satisfied with CMR project delivery. No reason to use DBB on future complex projects like this one. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Schedule and Cost per FTA procedures Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, scenario planning, and influence diagramming. Also used Monte Carlo simulations. Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment using FTA “Top-down” technique for cost categories with Beta factors supplied by FTA Quantitative risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation and expected value analysis. Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk management plan used to draft “Commercial Risk Table” in contract that quantifies cost risk for each area and assigns the risk to either TriMet or the CMR. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-31 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Design constructability review plan Yes Design cost engineering review plan Yes Construction quality management plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP) • Cost engineering review checklists • Quality management roles and responsibilities Northeastern University The Research Report 63

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-32 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM pre- construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 9 Cost engineering reviews 9 9 9 Constructability reviews 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-33 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 64

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Same as ones used in traditional DBB projects. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: TriMet requires the CMR to develop and implement a plan that is in accordance with its standard QA/QC guidelines. Also mandates the use of standard specifications and design details for system compatibility purposes. Northeastern University The Research Report 65

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 9 — I-205 Light Rail Extension Project Information Project Name: I-205 Light Rail Extension Project Name of Agency: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Portland, Oregon Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The I-205 MAX Light Rail Extension Project connects Clackamas County, one of the region's fastest growing areas, with Portland State University (PSU), in conjunction with the Portland Mall Light Rail Project. The 8.3-mile light rail extension also is a critical element in the long-range transportation plan, positioning the region for future light rail extensions to Milwaukie, Vancouver and to the southwest. It will have eight new stations and five Park & Ride lots providing approximately 2,200 spaces. Station design and placement will enhance transit access by connecting MAX to bus service all along this corridor, including 10 bus lines at Clackamas Town Center. The line's design will emphasize rider and pedestrian safety. Extensive community input and support has made light rail the preferred transportation option along the I-205 corridor. The construction of the I-205 segment will take place largely along an existing transitway, which lends itself to a design-build construction approach. This allows the contractor to complete the design while the alignment is being built, making it faster and less expensive. The I-205 Light Rail Extension Project will include: • 8.3 miles of light rail in existing transitway. • 8 stations • 5 Park & Ride lots. • 24 new light rail vehicles (with Portland Mall project). Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (DB contract): $163.8 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $163.8 million Project Schedule: Preliminary design contract award: 2004 Initial Advertising: July 2005 Final design-build contract award: November 2005 Original Project Delivery Period: 4 years Final Project Delivery Period: 4 years Expected completion (revenue operation date): September 30, 2009 Northeastern University The Research Report 66

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 6 to 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Developed a pro forma. Examined it and established public findings with regard to project complexity. Applied for and received a state exemption from low bid requirements. Input from internal sources only. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Reduce/compress/accelerate project schedule Get early construction contractor involvement Redistribute risk Complex project requirements Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce reasons were involved in the selection decision. Table 3-34 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -DBE/small business impact -Labor unions -Stakeholder/ community input* None -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *Design- builder PM able to be involved Sustainability issues were not considered nor required No construction claims on this project so far Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -LEED certification* -Agency experience -Staff capability* -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Competition* -Fed/State/ -Local laws FTA/EPA regulations. -Life cycle cost -Maintain- ability -Sustainable design/goals -Sustainable construction/ goals -Construction claims* Remarks on Above Constraints *Need to have greater scope definition to achieve LEED at an earlier time than this *Difficult to train staff with no previous DB experience *Fewer bidders DB moves too fast to incorporate these in initial RFP *Early pricing leaves owner exposed to potential claims for scope not Northeastern University The Research Report 67

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects DB project had included in RFP Summary Remarks TriMet did not mandate a requirement for sustainability. Rather it asked for sustainable design and construction features to be proposed by the design-builder as a betterment. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Schedule and Cost per FTA procedures Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, scenario planning, and influence diagramming. Also used Monte Carlo simulations. Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment using FTA “Top-down” technique for cost categories with Beta factors supplied by FTA Quantitative risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation and expected value analysis. Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk management plan used to draft “Commercial Risk Table” in contract that quantifies cost risk for each area and assigns the risk to either TriMet or the Design-builder. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-35 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule No Proposed schedule milestones No Schedule fixed by RFP Lump sum price No Schedule of values No Unit Prices No Price competition was fixed fee with costs to be negotiated after award Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Proposed sustainable design/construction Yes Sustainability treated as a betterment Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP) Design criteria checklists Standard design details Northeastern University The Research Report 68

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Standard guide specifications Table 3-36 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-37 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 69

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Northeastern University The Research Report 70 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. The design- builder has more responsibility for QA/QC Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Established a standard for the primary quality manager’s qualifications.