Strategic Program Delivery Methods (2017)

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.

33 CHAPTER FIVE CASE EXAMPLES OF STRATEGIC PROGRAM DELIVERY INTRODUCTION This chapter builds on the program delivery literature review and the state-of-practice survey discussed in the previous chap- ters. The main objective of this chapter is to discuss the practices of transportation agencies that deliver programs using a variety of methods. The chapter outlines the selection process for the case examples, and then describes how they develop and deliver their transportation programs using various methods. SELECTION OF CASE EXAMPLES The research team used the data from the national survey and the literature review to select the most appropriate state depart- ments of transportation for further study. They used the following selection criteria: • Experience delivering a program of projects; • Experience with alternative contracting methods; • Use of a variety of project delivery methods within a program; • Comprehensiveness and availability of program delivery documents, data, and performance measures; and • Willingness of agency personnel to participate in the study as determined by the survey responses. On the basis of these criteria, the research team selected 12 DOTs from across the United States and contacted them by phone and e-mail to invite them to participate in a case example study. The study involved conducting a structured inter- view with key program participants, collecting project and program delivery documents, and reviewing the final analysis for accuracy. Seven DOTs agreed to participate in the study: California, Florida, Missouri, Oregon, New York State, Utah, and Washington State. The case example protocol was as follows: 1. Conduct an opening interview with the DOT administrator or representative and program manager to orient the research team to the program and obtain relevant documentation and contact information for other participants. 2. Conduct additional interviews as necessary with key project and program participants to identify the processes and challenges of implementing program delivery and the strategies used to overcome these challenges. Focus on processes for choosing project delivery methods and how implementing a variety of methods has strategically improved the delivery of an agency’s program. 3. Collect examples of the key success factors, effective practices, and challenges of using a holistic approach to programming. 4. Perform a closing interview with the DOT administrator or representative and the program manager to verify the results and obtain any additional documentation. The research team used a structured interview protocol—including the same list of questions—during discussions and data collection. The general categories for the questions were as follows: • General information and program structures, • Alternative contracting methods, • Program delivery performance,

34 • Program delivery benefits and drawbacks, and • Lessons learned. See Appendix C for the complete list of questions. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) takes a holistic approach to programs and program delivery, using different programs to address different aspects of transportation needs for the state. This case example includes four programs (Proposition 1B program, highway bridge program, D-B demonstration program, and CM/GC pilot program), as well as over- all agency policies for delivering necessary programs to improve the transportation system throughout the state. General Information and Program Structure Caltrans uses a variety of programs to address different general and project needs. State Proposition (Prop.) 1B, which voters passed in 2006, provided $20 billion to Caltrans for projects to improve highway safety, reduce traffic, improve air quality, and enhance port security. Prop. 1B has been treated as a program (Figure 25). Caltrans also implemented a highway bridge program to address deficient bridges across the state, a design-build demonstration program to experiment with the use of D-B on 10 projects between 2009 and 2013, and a construction manager/general contractor pilot program to implement the depart- ment’s first use of CM/GC on six projects beginning in 2012. The programs were set up somewhat differently, depending on the goals, objectives, and other relevant parameters of each one. FIGURE 25 Breakdown of projects in the 2006 Proposition 1B Bond Measure (Source: Caltrans Prop. 1B website: http://www.bondaccountability.dot.ca.gov/bondacc/graphics/pie.html). For any program, Caltrans develops specific and general goals to ensure transparency with stakeholders on how the depart- ment is spending funds. Program goals are aligned with the overall strategic goals of the department, which helps ensure that Caltrans gains the maximum value for the available funds. In addition to cost/funding, scheduling is a typical parameter included in a program. Depending on the program, Caltrans develops specific performance metrics to measure each goal. For most programs, Caltrans begins the implementation process by reaching out to communities. For instance, the Prop. 1B program involved substantial public outreach because the projects within the program stretched across the entire state and used significant public funds. State taxpayers had entrusted Caltrans with a large amount of money to deliver a variety of projects for transportation improvements, so the department had to be transparent in how it managed the projects and the

35 funds. To inform the public, each Prop. 1B project had a charter through which the project team committed to a schedule, a dollar value, and a scope of work (State of California 2006). All information about any changes to those parameters was posted on the program website. In implementing the pilot programs for D-B and CM/GC, Caltrans selected the projects and set up performance measures, which has helped the department achieve program goals and gain the most value for the funds available. The major stake- holders of the D-B and CM/GC programs were the consultant and construction communities. Industry stakeholders included contractors, consultants, and funding agencies. Focusing on those groups allowed Caltrans to gain statewide buy-in from the industry to use ACMs on transportation projects (Caltrans 2014a). Alternative Contracting Methods Caltrans uses several ACMs, including D-B and CM/GC, to deliver its transportation programs. Senate Bill No. 4 authorized the agency to conduct a D-B demonstration program that would explore the potential for reducing project costs, expediting project completion, and using design features that are not available using the traditional D-B-B method (Caltrans 2009). The individual projects were funded by the STIP, the state highway operation and protection program, the traffic congestion relief program, and one of the programs designated under Prop. 1B. The legislation authorized Caltrans to award up to 10 projects and local entities to award up to five projects. On the basis of the success of the D-B demonstration program, Caltrans was authorized in 2014 to award an additional 10 D-B projects over the next 10 years (Caltrans 2014b). In 2012, Assembly Bill No. 2498 authorized Caltrans to conduct a CM/GC pilot program that would test the use of CM/GC as a cost-effective option by sharing the liability and risk for cost and schedule with the construction manager and by permit- ting the coherent phasing of projects into discrete contract increments (Caltrans 2012). Under this pilot program, the agency has the authority to use CM/GC for six transportation projects. Caltrans published an alternative procurement guide in 2008 to provide a framework for using alternative methods for contracting and procurement for capital projects (Caltrans 2008). The guide includes a selection tool that scores projects on certain parameters to determine the best delivery method. Caltrans used the selection tool to choose the 10 projects for the D-B demonstration program and the six projects for the CM/GC pilot program. The goal is to eventually use all available ACMs, so that every program can be delivered as efficiently as possible. In the meantime, Caltrans is making efforts to bring D-B and CM/GC into the mainstream, so that selecting a delivery method is just another decision in an effort to enhance the performance of a program (Caltrans 2014b). Caltrans does not have the authority to use D-B and CM/GC at any time. For example, when the agency received authori- zation in 2009 to use D-B on 10 transportation projects, the legislation specified that the contracts had to be awarded before January 1, 2014 (California Transportation Commission 2009). To ensure that the maximum benefits of using these ACMs would be achieved, Caltrans could not select projects in the programming phase but had to pick projects very late in the envi- ronmental phase or early in the design phase. During the interview, a Caltrans representative said, “This may not be the most ideal time to select projects for the use of ACMs, but that’s the way the program was set up.” Caltrans has rarely been able to pick a project in the programming phase for the use of ACMs because of this legislative constraint. In contrast to the D-B demonstration program, Caltrans was not given a deadline to complete the six projects in the CM/GC pilot program. However, the agency recognized that it could not ask for more CM/GC projects until it had proved the success of the CM/GC delivery method. Thus, a Caltrans representative said, “The decision was to select the six best projects available at that time and deliver them effectively and efficiently, so we could request more authority to use ACMs for our programs.” Program Delivery Performance Caltrans uses performance measures as a driving force to deliver transportation programs. Program performance is incorpo- rated into the department’s strategic goals, policies, and procedures. For example, delivery performance—which is focused on improving not only overall organizational efficiency but also the quality of transportation programs, projects, and services— was listed as one of the five key goals in the 2007–2012 strategic plan (Caltrans 2007b). Delivery performance measures include the following: • Reduce the cost to deliver highway projects; • Deliver highway projects on time;

36 • Ensure that completed projects achieve their originally intended purpose and requirements; and • Minimize project cost overruns. Delivery performance continues to be a focus in the 2015–2020 strategic plan. For instance, Goal 2 under Stewardship and Efficiency states that Caltrans pursues new approaches to effectively deliver projects and programs on time and on budget and to improve the maintenance and operation of the system (Caltrans 2015). Caltrans continues to be as transparent as possible with stakeholders and the traveling public. During the interview, a Caltrans official emphasized the importance of transpar- ency in project and program delivery; in fact, it is a strategic goal set at the department level. To measure performance in the D-B and CM/GC programs, Caltrans set up specific criteria that would demonstrate the effectiveness of each of these delivery methods. For the D-B demonstration program, Caltrans focused on the time savings it could achieve in awarding and completing a project and developed measures to demonstrate cost certainty in D-B projects. For the CM/GC pilot program, cost certainty measures were developed to show the effectiveness of using available funds when a contractor is brought on board early in the design process. One measure tracked the number of change orders and claims, which have been fewer for the CM/GC projects than for traditionally delivered projects. Caltrans also developed measures to show that innovative processes and procedures can be designed into the project when the contractor is brought on board early and that these processes and procedures can result in cost and time savings. Judged on performance, both the D-B demonstration program and the CM/GC pilot program were very successful. In the D-B program, all 10 projects were procured within the time limit; in fact, the agency awarded projects up to 30 months earlier than normal because of the D-B program. Cost savings were in the neighborhood of $150 million, including approximately 14% in savings due to innovation. The agency did experience issues and problems on some of the projects, but at the program level the D-B demonstration was a success. In the CM/GC pilot program, preliminary data coming from those projects point toward similar cost and time savings and overall success. Using the performance data collected for those two programs, Cal- trans is attempting to gain authority to use D-B and CM/GC on a more regular basis and to fill up its delivery method toolbox with other effective ACMs. Program Delivery Benefits and Challenges Caltrans experienced both benefits and challenges in delivering programs of projects across the state. The following two sections describe the general benefits as well as some of the challenges the department had to overcome to achieve program success. Benefits Enhanced Consistency in Program Delivery One of the main benefits of program delivery is consistency. Caltrans can explore the use of ACMs by identifying program performance measures instead of performance measures for individual projects. The department has some flexibility to try new processes and procedures within a program. For example, personnel who worked on D-B projects said that the D-B program allowed Caltrans to experiment with having some of the projects use alternative technical concepts (ATCs) and some not, to understand how to maximize the benefit of ATCs for D-B program delivery. Use of Stakeholder and Industry Input Another benefit of program delivery involves the use of stakeholder and industry input. Caltrans formed an industry steering committee to provide input for its transportation programs. The committee includes partners from the state engineers’ union, agency partners, and consulting partners. Caltrans allows these partners to help tailor implementations of various programs and solicits their assistance in pursuing legislation to acquire legal author- ity. Without the industry steering committee, Caltrans representatives said the programs would not have been as successful. Upper Management Support Delivery of a program that contains multiple projects requires upper management support. Upper management buy-in for a program can provide authority and direction across sub-program and project teams that enable the department to achieve program goals rather than meeting the goals and objectives of individual projects. Experience and Partnering in Program Delivery One of the biggest benefits noted by Caltrans representatives in the interviews was the experience gained by working with a finite group of people throughout the duration of the program and being able to identify the roles and responsibilities of each person. As a program progresses, the team can build upon one another’s experiences. At the conclusion of the demonstration and pilot programs, Caltrans realized that it had internal resources who can go out and deliver future programs in an efficient manner.

37 The success of the D-B and CM/GC programs also highlighted the importance of infusing partnering into the process. Caltrans is one of the transportation agencies in the United States that follows a very specific and formal partnering process for many of its projects. Bringing a contractor on board early and including the contractor in the decision-making process was a huge benefit for the large and somewhat complex projects Caltrans chose for each program. For the CM/GC delivery method, Caltrans implemented formal partnering with the contractor during the preconstruction phase and throughout construction. For the D-B delivery method, Caltrans required partnering from the very beginning through the end of the project. The agency believes that this partnering contributed greatly to the success of the two programs. Challenges Required Organizational Changes One challenge that Caltrans experienced with the D-B and CM/GC programs was push- back against change. Implementing a program of projects—especially using innovative contracting methods—required changes in the roles and responsibilities of personnel, and Caltrans experienced resistance throughout the department. One comment heard many times in both programs was “That’s not the way we deliver projects.” It was critical that upper manage- ment buy in to these programs and direct program personnel and in-house staff to become familiar with the processes and procedures of ACMs and to be open to changes in the way Caltrans delivers projects. New Processes and Procedures Caltrans knew that D-B and CM/GC do not follow traditional processes and procedures and that changes would be required in everyday business activities to achieve success in the demonstration and pilot programs. However, the agency was not sure exactly how each process, procedure, role, and responsibility would need to be changed. Caltrans solicited information from other DOTs and used the local contractor and consultant communities as a support mecha- nism as it learned how to deliver projects using D-B and CM/GC. There was also some trial and error involved in determining what worked and what needed revision. Community Outreach/Public Relations Another challenge for program delivery is the need for substantial community outreach, and Caltrans attempts to be as transparent as possible with all stakeholders. The agency begins the implementation process for every program by providing extensive details to the public via announcements and the website. As the program commences, Caltrans personnel continuously provide the public with information to keep everyone up to date and to maintain transparency. The challenge in this enterprise is the availability of experienced staff who understand the programs and know what information to share with the public. Maintaining a relationship with the public is a continuous and dynamic process throughout the duration of every program. Lessons Learned According to the information provided and discussions with Caltrans representatives, the agency has learned the following major lessons about program delivery: • Gain general authority to deliver projects: A program’s existence depends on gaining legislative authority and upper management support to establish and deliver it. Such authority and support allow the program team to deliver a set of projects successfully. • Have the right people involved: The success of a program revolves around selecting the right people and ensuring that they have the tools and training necessary to effectively and efficiently deliver their program and its projects. Caltrans learned early in the D-B demonstration program that people have a tendency to go back to traditional processes and procedures when problems arise. The agency provided training to personnel to show them the differences between D-B and traditional delivery methods; however, as people perform their day-to-day tasks, they slip back into the traditional delivery mentality. Caltrans thus provides additional training along with coaching to help people make the mental shift required to use ACMs. • Ensure that the right projects are included in the program: Caltrans learned that project selection for a program is criti- cal. In hindsight, some of the projects selected for the D-B and CM/GC programs may not have been the best choices, because they could have been completed just as well using traditional delivery methods. For these projects, Caltrans struggled to maximize the benefits of ACMs. Another aspect of project selection is choosing them early in the develop- ment process to take full advantage of using ACMs. Caltrans realized that a few projects were past the ideal point for inclusion in the demonstration and pilot programs; thus, the department did not experience the full benefits of using ACMs. Although these projects were successful, they would have been even more successful if they had been selected earlier and had been able to employ alternatives for program delivery. A Caltrans representative concluded, “Timing is very important in selecting projects for a program.”

38 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) uses programs to deliver a multitude of projects and initiatives throughout the state. This case example focuses mostly on the overall view of the department’s alternative delivery programs, primarily the I-4 Ultimate program and the I-595 corridor. The following sections contain data collected from discussions with FDOT personnel as well as information provided by the agency. General Information and Program Inventory Every year FDOT develops a 5-year work program that it submits to the state legislature for approval. Once the program has been approved, FDOT reviews the projects in a 2-year look-ahead analysis to determine whether a project should use an ACM or a traditional delivery method. As the projects are developed, some may become part of a program whereas others will be delivered individually. Many programs include economic stimulus requirements. In these cases, FDOT finds it advantageous to deliver a program using ACMs. For example, the ability of the D-B delivery method to accelerate design and construction helps move the funds provided in the program to the state’s construction and consultant industry. As an FDOT D-B representative stated, “Moving the funds not only allows the work to proceed faster but also allows for the construction and consultant industry to hire more staff to perform the work.” Programs can vary in size and type. FDOT has programs for a variety of initiatives and specific areas of construction. For example, an FDOT employee noted, “FDOT uses an initiative for adaptive signal control systems projects. These initiatives tend to be small projects, but the technology involved in the projects changes very quickly, so that it would be difficult for FDOT to keep up on their own.” This approach puts the risk and control of the system in the design-builder’s hands. Each interested design-builder proposes the best technology and cost available, and FDOT chooses the best-value solution. FDOT understands the importance of developing goals for a program. The department follows a series of strategic goals focused on cost efficiencies, preservation, capacity improvements, disadvantaged business enterprise involvement, and safety (Florida Transportation Commission 2015). In addition, each program has its own set of specific goals and a series of performance metrics to measure success in achieving those goals. When FDOT promises to deliver a program or a project by a specific time, it determines the feasibility of using ACMs, then sets up specific measures to continuously track the overall duration of the program. Understand- ing how to achieve goals is a critical step, regardless of whether they are department, program, or project goals. Implementation of programs depends on the delivery method used. FDOT has a team that handles D-B projects and one that works with P3 projects and programs. These teams typically handle a program from the central office. FDOT has a decen- tralized organization structure in which the various districts throughout the state handle the projects in their districts while the central office provides administrative and management assistance. However, in the case of programs, it makes more sense for FDOT to centralize the management (Secrest et al. 2012). Alternative Contracting Methods FDOT has the authority to use D-B-B, D-B, CM/GC, and P3 delivery methods for transportation projects. An FDOT official said, “Most projects throughout the state use D-B-B because they do not require the additional benefits that ACMs offer.” FDOT tends to use ACMs for projects or programs that require acceleration or that entail high risk or unusual complexity. Other projects targeted for the use of alternative delivery methods are those that would benefit from innovation or that need outside engineering expertise. FDOT has been using D-B since the late 1980s and has completed more than 400 D-B projects; the agency has one of the most sophisticated D-B programs in the United States. Typically, a D-B program receives bids from four or five interested design-builder firms. FDOT uses the best-value procurement procedure and may include ATCs because the department has developed a formal and successful program for embedding innovation into ACMs. Typically, FDOT uses D-B to deliver large bridges, high-risk projects and programs, and rail projects. The department also has authority to use CM/GC, which it typi- cally uses for supplemental building projects that support infrastructure projects. However, FDOT has recently embarked on a few CM/GC highway projects, notably the Bascule Bridge project. Department personnel said that having the contractor on board during the design phase resulted in better working relationships with partners, and improvements to constructability and processes and procedures. The project also realized cost savings.

39 FDOT developed its P3 alternative delivery program for use in major corridors that require extensive upgrades to reduce congestion and improve travel safety and traffic flow. When a series of projects in a corridor become part of a 5-year program, FDOT analyzes them to determine whether it is in the department’s best interest to combine the projects into a P3 corridor program or to let each project separately. FDOT might also consider a design-build-finance (D-B-F) approach, which is simi- lar to a P3 but does not include the operations and maintenance portion. Once a set of corridor projects becomes a P3 or D-B-F program, FDOT has the ability to start the program much sooner than if the projects were let individually. P3 and D-B-F rely on private financing with payback periods by the department. During the interview with FDOT personnel, they noted that private financing allows large programs along a corridor to occur in a much shorter time frame. Overall, FDOT has been suc- cessful in injecting private financing into public infrastructure programs. Program Delivery Performance Delivery performance is an important aspect of determining the success of transportation programs. Performance measure- ment is necessary at the program level to provide information that represents the work being performed. The Florida Trans- portation Commission (FTC) requires FDOT to submit performance metrics annually for review; this review determines future funding and authority. In the interview, an FDOT official said that the department had achieved all of its program goals in the previous year, meaning that it had successfully delivered its programs. Figure 26 illustrates FDOT’s performance framework. The FDOT 2015 Performance Report discussed these five drivers of a performance review: 1. Assess how well Florida’s multimodal transportation system is functioning. 2. Provide information to support and inform decision making. 3. Assess how effectively and efficiently transportation programs, projects, and services are being delivered. 4. Determine customer satisfaction levels. 5. Demonstrate transparency and accountability to Florida’s citizens and foster collaboration with FDOT’s transportation system stakeholders (FDOT 2015a). FIGURE 26 FDOT performance framework (Source: FDOT 2015a) Program Delivery Benefits and Challenges This section summarizes the major benefits and challenges FDOT has faced in strategically delivering a program of projects. Other state DOTs may be able to use this information. Benefits Improved Design and Innovation One advantage to using D-B delivery is that the designs are not as conservative as the department’s in-house designs. Design-builders tend to infuse innovation and design elements that improve the overall program. An FDOT official stated in the interview process that “innovation is a huge benefit of using alternative delivery programs.” Contractors often develop and use methods and techniques to perform the work at a level above FDOT’s expectations.

40 Less Risk Exposure The use of D-B and P3 for programs can alleviate some of the department’s risk. During the develop- ment of a program, enterprisewide risks are often identified. On the basis of the risk register, FDOT can analyze and mitigate the risk associated with program delivery (FDOT 2015b). This process can result in shifting risks from FDOT to other parties or sharing risks. FDOT (2015b) summarized typical programmatic risks as follows: • Risk associated with program delivery due to unfunded federal mandates, • Risk associated with program delivery due to diversion of funds to high-profile projects, • Risk associated with program delivery due to staff turnover and loss of expertise/experience, • Risk associated with program delivery due to poor data management systems and strategies, • Risk associated with program delivery due to poor management, • Risk associated with program delivery due to a new statute requiring capacity-related investment, and • Risk associated with program delivery due to unpredicted variation in construction costs. Challenges Lack of Experienced Personnel FDOT acknowledged that the program team must be talented and experienced in using ACMs to manage the complexities of delivering a program. Having the right team in place can significantly affect the success of the program. FDOT must rely on both internal D-B staff and the industry—including consultants, engineers, contractors, and legal experts—to effectively deliver any program. Difficulty in RFP Development Another challenge is the development of the request for proposals (RFP). Although FDOT has had significant experience using D-B and has sophisticated policies and procedures for developing an RFP, it is difficult to anticipate future decisions and occurrences that can upset a program, such as unforeseen site conditions and the ability to resolve issues before they become claims. FDOT knows that RFP development must capture the scope of projects in the pro- gram and must inform proposing firms of the requirements, constraints, and risks involved. Clearly communicating program and project information in an RFP can increase the chances for overall success of a program. Less Innovation in Maintenance Than Anticipated FDOT has encountered one unexpected drawback of using P3 in a transporta- tion program—the department anticipated that concessionaires would be more innovative in their use of construction materials and methods in order to reduce future requirements for maintenance. This goal has not been achieved in any of the department’s P3 cor- ridors. As one FDOT official observed with regard to the I-595 corridor, “Although innovation has been substantial with alternative delivery, innovation has not yet made its way to the operations and maintenance side of a long-term program concessionaire contract.” Lessons Learned The FDOT representatives provided the following lessons learned for developing an effective approach to program delivery: • Document repeated issues on projects within a program: The first lesson learned involves documenting and analyzing recur- ring issues and problems related to alternative delivery programs. These issues may have a considerable impact on project and program performance. Studying them will help FDOT develop best practices to avoid similar issues in future program delivery. • Review ATCs in detail: During the early stages of using ATCs with D-B, FDOT realized that although ATCs that increase innovation in a program are desirable, they should be reviewed in detail. In one example, a design-builder sub- mitted an ATC that changed the geometrics of an interchange. Although it was an innovative idea, the review missed the fact that changing the configuration also changed the paving and structure requirements for the interchange. It is important to understand the potential for collateral damage if an ATC causes additional issues, costs, or delays. • Infuse innovation from ATCs to increase success: Currently, FDOT has three categories for ATCs: items that may not be changed, items that may be changed on a limited basis, and items that may be changed without limitations. This evolution of the ATC process helps focus innovation in programs on appropriate items and protects areas that should not be changed. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview In 2008, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) embarked on a revolutionary program for repairing or replac- ing as many deficient bridges as possible across the state: the Missouri Safe and Sound (S&S) Bridge Program (MoDOT

41 2013a). Initially, MoDOT decided to use a design-build-finance-maintain (D-B-F-M) method, which is comparable to P3. However, the kickoff year for the program was 2008, which was when the economy collapsed as a result of the housing bust. Private development firms had a difficult time obtaining funds from banks for the bridge program, so MoDOT decided to use D-B-B and D-B to deliver the projects (MoDOT 2013a). General Information and Program Inventory Transportation programs in MoDOT are often established on the basis of specific needs of the state. In the case of the S&S program, Missouri had more than 1,000 bridges that were classified by the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) rating system as in “serious” or “poor” condition. These bridges were becoming a safety issue for the traveling public; the program was developed to improve the safety of travel across the state. Through a statewide evaluation process, 802 projects were chosen for the S&S program (MoDOT 2013a). It would have been very difficult to increase internal staffing and coordinate 802 bridge projects across the state in the desired 5-year period, so MoDOT decided to package the projects as a program and let them as bundles to constructors. MoDOT made the critical decision to package all 554 replacement bridge projects as one project and to use the D-B deliv- ery method. A consortium of construction contractors and design consultants (design-builders) was awarded the bundled D-B project. An official with MoDOT said, “Our role for the D-B contract was to handle all of the tasks and activities associated with right-of-way, utilities, environmental requirements, inspections, and community outreach.” Although the S&S program contained hundreds of projects, the actual design and construction work for most of the bridges was straightforward, and they were not complex projects. The average bridge in the S&S program was approximately 147 ft long, 24 ft wide, and 60 years old. Most of these bridges were in rural communities, and the average daily traffic rate was approximately 1,900 vehicles; about 300 of the bridges in the program had an average daily traffic rate of less than 400 vehicles. This situation provided an opportunity to strategize construction of similar bridge structures, with a focus on speedy construction. Owing to the uncertainties inherent in pricing for repairing a bridge compared with total replacement, MoDOT decided to use D-B-B for the repair and rehabilitation projects. Alternative Contracting Methods MoDOT has several options to deliver its transportation projects and programs. These options include the traditional D-B-B delivery method, the use of D-B-B with ATCs, D-B, cost-plus-time bidding, and design-build-finance-maintain. Missouri does not have legislation in place to allow the use of CM/GC. MoDOT had used D-B for a few projects before the S&S pro- gram, but it was still a new process for the department when the program began. Determining the delivery method for this program required MoDOT to investigate all 802 projects and classify each one as either a full replacement project or a repair/rehabilitation project. All full replacement projects were packaged as D-B projects, and all repair/rehabilitation projects were bid individually as D-B-B. MoDOT also considered the following factors in choosing D-B: • High risk and complexity, • Need for innovation, and • Need to shorten the duration of design and construction. To complete the S&S program in a reasonable amount of time, MoDOT considered cost efficiencies, speed efficiencies, and logistics to determine the suitable delivery method for each project. The department uses a similar process to determine the delivery method for a single project and for a program, but the latter is more complex. For program delivery, MoDOT consid- ers the logistics of planning each project in terms of location, procurement of materials, permitting, bundling of projects, and actual construction. Once the funding was determined and the bridges were identified, MoDOT reviewed all the projects to determine whether the risk involved, the need for innovation, and the short time frame would require the use of D-B over D-B-B. The program team determined that 554 bridges would use D-B, and MoDOT decided to bundle all 554 as one large project. This allowed economies of scale that accelerated the projects. Considering all 554 D-B projects, the design-builder provided standardized designs, which allowed materials to be ordered in bulk and staged and ready to go before construction began. In addition, the design-builder was tasked with determining

42 the logistics of delivering the 554 bridge projects, which alleviated the risk to MoDOT of coordinating the projects. Many local and state contractors were upset that a large consortium of national construction and design firms would perform the majority of the program design and construction work. However, a MoDOT representative noted, “Many of our local and state contractors were able to gain work in the program, as the design-builder subcontracted much of the construction work to other general contractors. The design-builder realized that mobilizing their own crews was not as cost-effective as using local contractors.” Program Delivery Performance Program performance was measured on a project-by-project basis, and specific measures were used to monitor progress toward overall program goals. Project performance measures focused on cost, schedule, quality, and safety; for example: • Planned versus actual expenditures, • Planned versus actual schedule durations, • Safety (by tracking reportable incidents), and • Quality (by tracking recurring nonperformance reports). MoDOT also developed a process to track recurring issues on individual projects and throughout the program. The solu- tions to these issues were documented in a best practices manual that was continuously revised. This process steadily improved performance throughout the duration of the program. In terms of the high-level goals for the S&S program, MoDOT and the design-builder tracked and measured their perfor- mance. Table 5 summarizes the program goals and outcomes reported by MoDOT. TABLE 5 PROGRAM GOALS AND OUTCOMES FOR THE S&S BRIDGE PROGRAM Program Goal Outcome Meet the needs of the highway system and traveling public Positive feedback from the traveling public on the improvements made. S&S program has received numerous awards and accolades for its success. Deliver good bridges at a great value Program finished under budget and project locations returned to better than before conditions. Minimize public inconvenience through increased construction speed and flexible scheduling Use of design-build for most critical and high-risk projects to accelerate schedule. MoDOT moved bridge proj- ects on the schedule to lessen inconveniences to the traveling public. The average closure for any bridge was only 42 days, when many expected this to be in the range of 60–90 days. Complete all construction by October 31, 2014 MoDOT’s completion date was October 2014. The design-builder’s completion date was December 2013. The actual completion date of the project was October 2012, which was 14 months ahead of the design-builder’s schedule and 24 months ahead of MoDOT’s schedule. Sources: MoDOT (2013a); Gapstur and Warbritton (2013). Program Delivery Benefits and Challenges Overall, MoDOT considered the S&S bridge delivery program a success. MoDOT realized many benefits along with several challenges in delivering this program. The following two sections describe the general benefits, as well as some of the chal- lenges the department had to overcome to achieve a successful program and accomplish the program’s goals. Benefits Shortened Delivery Schedule One of the significant benefits of using D-B for the S&S bridge improvement program was to shorten the overall schedule from more than 5 years to 3.5 years. The key to the rapid completion of this program was the strategy to close roads and replace a number of bridges in the same location, eliminating the need for costly roadwork. The average closure was just 42 days (MoDOT 2013a). Improved Communications and Relationships with Contractor Community Two other benefits that MoDOT personnel noted during the interview were improved communications and development of long-term relationships with contractors. Twenty-two Missouri contractors, more than 100 subcontractors and materials suppliers, and 21 local bridge builders were involved in this program. MoDOT’s relationships with local contractors were key to the success of the program; the depart- ment called them “the hometown team” (MoDOT 2013b).

43 Standardized Design Elements MoDOT realized that most of the bridges in the program would not be technically challeng- ing or difficult to design or construct. And many were located in rural or sparsely populated areas, so disruptions to motorists would be limited. MoDOT and the design-builder standardized elements of the bridges and ordered materials in bulk, which saved on material costs. The standardized elements and bridge types also meant that parts were interchangeable, so that if a local scheduling issue affected construction on one bridge, the parts could be used on another bridge that was ready to go. The original contract included a provision that allowed MoDOT to make such substitutions on a limited number of bridges. Development of a Best Practices Manual for Recurring Issues MoDOT tracked and documented recurring issues on this program. When a problem arose on a project, MoDOT and the design-builder could check to see if other projects had faced similar issues; if so, they could apply the solution or solutions that had been successfully used. Tracking recurring issues and documenting the solutions in a best practices manual has enabled MoDOT to significantly improve overall performance and will be helpful for future bridge projects. Scheduling Flexibility MoDOT included several incentives and disincentives in the D-B contract to help accelerate the program schedule. In addition, MoDOT implemented a “flexibility move” requirement that essentially reserved the right of the department to move the schedule on a limited number of bridges. As compensation, the design-builder was allowed to use weighted timetables and standard DOT scheduling tools to compute the number of working days available for each bridge under various conditions. This process worked well—the contractor collected additional revenue and yet, at the end of the program, the allotted incentive funds were not exhausted. Challenges Logistics of Coordinating Hundreds of Bridge Projects MoDOT realized early on that one of the most significant challenges for the S&S program would be the logistics and coordination of so many projects over a set period. Department personnel prepared by investing a substantial amount of time in planning for the program. However, even with massive amounts of planning, the critical factor for dealing with the “logistical nightmare” was the team structure and the overall cooperation and collaboration among MoDOT, the design-builder, and the other contractors involved in the program. MoDOT and the design-builder worked together to develop a plan to address the bridges along major routes, to ensure that a limited number of bridges along a route would be under construction at the same time. In addition, the design-builder had access to deliver prefabricated and standardized parts to each bridge location. MoDOT integrated its managers with the design-builder’s team, and the overall program was run from headquarters rather than in the individual regions. MoDOT staffed a lead field engineer to jointly manage the work in each region with the design-builder’s personnel. In addition, all bridges in the D-B bundle had a design-builder subcontract handler, a MoDOT inspector, and a subcontractor superintendent, and they worked as a team. Matching the design-builder and MoDOT staff at all levels resulted in an effective level of teamwork and coordination, which was critical for this logistically driven program. Change in the Program Method of Delivery Due to Economic Recession The economic crisis that began in 2008 created an early challenge for the S&S program. MoDOT had planned to use D-B-F-M to deliver and maintain the program, but the recession drastically affected the ability of private concessionaires to gain financing. Total budgets for large transportation construction programs can easily exceed $100 million; thus, financing affects how a program will be delivered or if it can be delivered at all. Missouri had more than 1,000 deficient bridges when the S&S program was first conceived; however, owing to cost concerns, MoDOT could repair or replace only 802 of them. To keep the program moving forward, the department changed its plan, eliminating the use of D-BFM and using D-B and, to a lesser extent, D-B-B (MoDOT 2013a). Moving to D-B and D-B-B meant that MoDOT had to carefully bundle a series of bridge projects into one project to ensure that financing would be available and that cost saving measures such as value engineering were in place. Effective Use of Local Contractors Another major challenge MoDOT faced was leveraging the use of local contractors, who were not happy about the volume of work that would be conducted by a large consortium. To overcome this challenge, MoDOT included a recommendation in the D-B RFP that the awarded team try to gain the support of local contractors so the individual projects and the overall program would be successful. Although this was just a recommendation, the design- builder team ended up relying primarily on local contractors. The design-builder realized that mobilizing its own crews and equipment would not be as cost-effective as working with local contractors, who were already located, equipped, and staffed all across the state. The design-builder team took on the local contractors as partners, and the results were very favorable. Community Outreach MoDOT handled most of the statewide public relations for the S&S program. Knowing that this would be a huge undertaking, the department included a clause in the D-B contract that required the design-builder to support

44 MoDOT in its public relations efforts. The department also developed a website for the program that included a statewide map with an icon for each of the bridge projects. Users could click on a bridge icon and follow links to background informa- tion, pictures, schedules, contractors, detours, closings, and other pertinent information. The bridge icons were color coded to denote that a project was completed or scheduled for completion within 90 days, within a year, or in more than 1 year. This allowed people to check on when bridges in their area would be under construction and what detours or closings would be in place and for how long. Lessons Learned On the basis of the successful completion of the S&S program, MoDOT provided the following three primary lessons learned regarding program delivery: • Use of a third-party firm as a program manager: The MoDOT representative noted in the interview that the use of a design-builder as program manager was a huge advantage for the program and a major factor in its success. For future programs, MoDOT would need to discuss in detail the use of a program manager to assist with the design and construc- tion of a substantial number of projects. • Flexibility in planning: Planning to strategically deliver a program this large is a tremendous undertaking, and just as the program was closing in on the beginning of the design phase, MoDOT had to re-plan because the use of D-B-F-M was no longer feasible during the economic recession. Fortunately, the department had used D-B in two previous successful projects and was able to adapt its processes to the S&S program. • Accelerated construction of a large number of bridge projects: Completion of such a large number of bridges at a pace much faster than normal demonstrated that the traveling public is willing to accept road closures if MoDOT can deliver projects with the promised speed. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) received funding from the state assembly in 2012 for the NY Works Accelerated Bridge Program, an innovative construction initiative to reduce the backlog of deficient bridges across the entire state (NYSDOT 2012). The program includes more than $1.2 billion to improve approximately 2,000 lane miles of roads and more than 120 deficient bridges. The breakdown of funding includes $212 million for deck and structural replace- ment and repairs, $250 million for pavement preservation and treatment to extend the life of pavement, and $687 million for transportation bridge projects. The average age of New York State bridges in 2012 was 46 years. Most of these structures have a lifespan of approximately 50 years. The state legislature recognized the need to fix these components of the transportation system before the cost of repairs and replacement rose even higher (D’Amico 2013). Addressing these infrastructure needs will also reduce the amount of maintenance and repair work required on deficient bridges. General Information and Program Inventory The initiation of the NY Works Accelerated Bridge Program was driven by the understimulated economy during the reces- sion. The state government needed to create jobs, and there was a backlog of deficient bridges that needed to be repaired or replaced. The legislature injected additional funds into the NYSDOT capital program to help create new jobs and complete much-needed transportation improvement work. This funding eventually evolved into the NY Works Accelerated Bridge Program. The overarching goal of the program was to improve the deficient bridges. The specific goals included the following: • Raise bridge condition ratings to a National Bridge Inventory rating higher than 5.4 and ensure that the bridges remain nondeficient for at least 10 years (i.e., no maintenance for at least a decade after completion); • Ensure that deck service life is equivalent to the remaining life of the bridge structure; • Eliminate joints where possible; • Improve load ratings; • Improve bridge conditions from “fair” to “good”; and • Stay within budget and on schedule (Eng 2015).

45 Because this program would span the entire state and would require massive coordination, management, and decision making for multiple projects simultaneously, NYSDOT officials decided to run the program from the central office rather than from the individual regions. The individual NYSDOT regions did not have the ability to staff up to the level needed for the program. To ensure that the program was managed as efficiently as possible and that program goals were achieved, the central office managed and controlled it (Secrest et al. 2012). Alternative Construction Methods The Infrastructure Investment Act of 2011 gave NYSDOT the authority to use the traditional D-B-B delivery method, D-B, and best-value procurement for both D-B-B and D-B (Eng 2015). When the NY Works program was established, NYSDOT had to select the projects that would be included in the program and determine the delivery method to use for each project. Specifically, the department had to determine whether to package the projects individually or to bundle multiple bridges into one project. NYSDOT considered using ACMs to accelerate the construction of the bridge projects to meet the needs of the program. Once the governor had signed the legislation for the NY Works program, the NYSDOT commissioner of the state pro- vided NYSDOT with a list of the bridges that would be included. The program team reviewed the list with regard to geo- graphic location, overall size and magnitude, and level of complexity expected for each of the projects. The team searched for opportunities to bundle bridges into projects on the basis of location. Some of the listed projects were already in the design development phase; the team decided that these projects were good candidates for the D-B-B delivery method. Bridges that were not in the development phase tended to be good candidates for D-B. The department ensured that the overall D-B program and staff were not overwhelmed by too many projects, because they did not yet have extensive expe- rience with D-B. For the bundled D-B-B projects, NYSDOT realized that it could save on administrative costs by submitting the entire bundle to the Plan, Specifications & Estimate staff at once rather than project by project. For the bundled D-B projects, cost savings were realized owing to fewer procurement processes compared with using a single D-B contract. The disadvantage of bundling projects was that fewer contractors would be used; however, more work would be completed, and the awarded contractors would have to increase their staffs to deliver the bundled projects. Increasing staff to complete the work addressed the economic stimulus goal of the NY Works program. The NYSDOT program team divided the projects into two phases. Phase 1A bundled 83 D-B-B projects into a program that included nine projects. Phase 1B bundled 48 D-B projects into a program that included four projects. The nine D-B-B projects and the four D-B projects were called “zones,” because each of the bundles was based on a geographic location within the state. Program Delivery Performance Performance assessment occurred at both the program and project levels. NYSDOT achieved the programmatic goals for the NY Works program associated with the condition of the bridges. An NYSDOT official said, “All of the bridges in this program are now rated above 5.4 based on the NBI measure. All the decks we now expect to last as long as the remaining life of the bridge; fewer joints are a part of the bridges to help reduce maintenance; and the load ratings have all been increased as needed.” For the overall program goals, three of the four D-B zones were on time and on budget. One D-B zone finished late but remained on budget. The main reason for the delay in this zone was that the department did not successfully award the contract because of high-priced proposals, so it was re-bid using the D-B-B approach. For the D-B-B zones, many of the bids received were different from the department’s Plan, Specifications & Estimates. However, most bidders came in relatively close to the estimates—some came in high and some came in low, which balanced out the total budget of Phase 1A of the program. Overall, NYSDOT completed 80 D-B-B bridge projects. One area in which performance goals were not met involved the number of D-B projects programmed to be completed. Originally, 48 bridges were slated to use D-B. As NYSDOT executed the procurement process, it turned out that one of the geographic areas, Zone 3, included too many bridges, so the bids came in much higher than expected. The program team had to reject all the proposals for Zone 3, which reduced the number of D-B projects to 32 and increased the number of D-B-B projects from 64 bridges to 80.

46 Program Delivery Benefits and Challenges In the case example interview, NYSDOT personnel said they believed that using program delivery offered more benefits than drawbacks to the department. The following sections summarize the benefits and challenges of using program delivery methods in the NY Works Accelerated Bridge Program. Benefits Accelerated Program Schedule D-B was a new delivery method for NYSDOT when it delivered the accelerated bridge pro- gram. D-B typically accelerates the schedule of a program or project. NYSDOT personnel said the department was skeptical about this potential benefit, but once the D-B bundle of projects began, each zone showed an acceleration in schedule, and each bundle used the overlapping of design and construction to shorten the overall project and program schedule. NYSDOT had resources available for many of the bridges in the D-B-B projects, because some were already in the design development phase. Because these projects were in the works, NYSDOT would not gain the benefits inherent in D-B. How- ever, the department was motivated to accelerate the D-B-B projects, so it worked with the awarded contractor for each D-B-B bundle to implement various techniques and innovative ideas, such as using project duration as an award criterion in best- value procurement to reduce the overall duration of the bundled projects (Eng 2015). As an NYSDOT official said, “Using accelerated approaches for D-B-B reduced the schedule in such an efficient manner that we are working on implementing similar processes into all of our D-B-B projects as a standard practice.” Standardized Design and Improved Construction Means and Methods Within each zone of bundled projects, the design- builder took advantage of standardized design elements and improved construction methods on all the bridges in that zone. NYSDOT realized cost savings because schedules were shorter, ordering and fabrication of materials occurred in bulk, and contractors established similar tasks across all bridges, which improved productivity. Reduced Administrative Burdens The bundling process used was a major component in NYSDOT’s successful program delivery. By combining many bridges into one large project, NYSDOT reduced the amount of procurement required, the number of contracts it had to manage, and the number of permits it had to get. (Streamlining the permitting process was a factor in the department’s decision to bundle the projects.) Overall, bundling allowed for more consistency and efficiency in working with the contractors. Challenges Fewer Contractors Involved One concern at the beginning of the program was that NYSDOT’s mandate was not only to reha- bilitate deficient bridges but also to stimulate the state’s economy. A program this size would attract bids from large national and international transportation construction firms, but to stimulate the state economy, local contractors would need to have a chance to win the bulk of the bridge construction work. Bundling projects meant that fewer contractors would be involved, but NYSDOT avoided the larger problem by bundling projects into geographic zones to attract local and regional contractors. Managing Multiple Projects Simultaneously and over a Short Period of Time Another challenge was the necessity to reject all proposals for Zone 3 of the D-B bundle because the zone was too large and far flung, and the bids were too high. The D-B bundle included 16 bridges, and the projects (located in the western and central parts of the state) were too limited in scope to be packaged separately. The contract needed to be large enough to attract many bidders, but the locations of some of the bridges were remote, and the proposals came in high. After rejecting the high proposals, NYSDOT divided the work into smaller bundles and let them using D-B-B. Although the work was completed, it was not completed in the manner that NYSDOT had intended. Lessons Learned A program of this size was bound to encounter challenges. The benefit of working through all the mistakes and challenges has helped NYSDOT develop processes to avoid the same mistakes in future programs. In the interview with NYSDOT personnel, they discussed the following lessons learned from the NY Works Accelerated Bridge Program: • Bundling projects: For the most part, bundling projects worked well. However, the D-B Zone 3 contract turned out to be too large in terms of geographic size, and the locations of the bridges were too remote to obtain competitive proposals.

47 Once NYSDOT rejected all the proposals, the only option was to re-bundle the projects into much smaller parts and let the bundles as D-B-B projects. In the future, NYSDOT will be more cautious in how it bundles projects. • Using ACMs: The use of D-B was a relatively new approach for NYSDOT, and the department learned some key les- sons about developing RFPs. For example, the first draft D-B RFPs caused some confusion among contractors. In the interview, NYSDOT representatives said that current practices are much different from the way NYSDOT developed D-B RFPs for the NY Works Accelerated Bridge Program; they said that even industry contractors have noted a vast improvement in D-B RFPs. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview In 2003, the Oregon State Legislature passed a bill called the Oregon Transportation Investment Act III (OTIA III), which provided $1.3 billion to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to replace and repair deficient bridges throughout the state (ODOT 2014). OTIA III was also a jobs bill that required ODOT to develop and implement the program in a manner that would help improve the state’s economy. General Information and Program Inventory The OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program was the result of a study conducted in the early part of the 2000s that revealed a seri- ous shearing (diagonal cracking) problem in hundreds of bridges across the state. The cracking occurred on a certain bridge type constructed on many of Oregon’s interstates and highways during the 1950s and 1960s, when the highway system was expanding (ODOT 2003). The cracking was becoming such an issue that ODOT had been forced to limit the maximum loads on a few bridges and close a couple of bridges completely. These limitations caused major detours along primary truck routes; in some cases, hundreds of miles to bypass a load-restricted or closed bridge. Without OTIA III, load limits and complete closures of bridges would have increased drastically. The $1.3 billion OTIA III program helped fund the replacement or repair of 365 bridges. ODOT completed 271 bridges during the program, with 94 bridges labeled as “no-work” or “tentative no-work.” ODOT inspects all these bridges on a 2-year cycle to monitor their condition and integrity, which may result in work required in the future. Overall, the program took place over a 12-year period (2003 to 2015) and used the OTIA III funds in the most efficient manner. ODOT has received many accolades acknowledging the success of the OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program (ODOT 2015c). As a condition of OTIA III, ODOT developed the program goals using an approach called context-sensitive and sustainable solutions. The specific goals of the OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program were as follows: • Stimulate the economy; • Employ efficient and cost-effective practices; • Maintain freight mobility/keep traffic moving; • Build projects that are sensitive to their communities and landscape; and • Capitalize on funding opportunities (ODOT 2015a). Another requirement of OTIA III was that ODOT had to outsource the management of the program (Tindall 2006). As a result, ODOT procured a program management firm to manage the entire program from start to finish. A joint venture consisting of a large design firm and a large construction contracting firm was selected as the program manager; it was called the Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP). The design firm managed the design of the projects within the pro- gram, while the contracting firm managed the construction. An advantage of hiring a third-party firm to provide program management was that ODOT internal resources were held to a minimum. Had ODOT not hired a program manager, staff- ing would have become a major issue; ODOT estimated that it would have needed an additional 500 employees for the program (Tindall 2006). The program contained projects in all five transportation regions across the state; therefore, the department decided it would be more efficient to lead and manage the entire program from the central office (Secrest et al. 2012). Running the pro- gram as a statewide program helped minimize delays along major travel and freight routes. Additionally, OBDP helped ODOT implement a construction process, using electronic documents and processes to continuously coordinate work (ODOT 2014).

48 In terms of decision making, ODOT retained the general decision authority, but OBDP had the right to assist with deci- sion making according to the scope of its contract. Both decision making and problem solving were addressed at the program and project levels. A programmatic decision made early on was to bundle multiple bridges into one project on the basis of geographic location and total costs. Keeping bundles within a geographic area or along a highway corridor allowed local contractors to bid on the work, and different sized bundles allowed contractors of all sizes within the state to bid (ODOT 2015b). Even the small contractors had a chance to work with ODOT as a part of this program. A total of 88 bundles covered the 271 completed bridges, with 75 project bundles using D-B-B, 11 using D-B, one using CM/GC, and one using cost-plus- qualifications-plus-work plan (A+C+D) bidding. Another program-level decision was to use D-B to accelerate projects. D-B was a new delivery method for ODOT in 2003, so the department hired a consultant as the primary resource for learning how to execute a D-B project. The consultant helped ODOT throughout much of the program by developing the D-B program and providing services for D-B procurement. ODOT then hired OBDP to help manage those D-B projects and to help with the development of D-B projects that occurred later in the program. Most of the deteriorating bridges were along the north-south I-5 corridor and the east-west I-84 corridor. ODOT decided to minimize traffic delays by first addressing the deteriorating bridges along these corridors. D-B was used to complete these projects first so that others could be completed in an accelerated fashion. ODOT began working on the deteriorating bridges along I-5 and I-84 sooner than planned, and many of the bridge projects completed within the first few years of this program were delivered using D-B (ODOT 2015b). With the help of OBDP, ODOT standardized some of the design elements and environmental requirements for the bridges in the program. Standardizing the design allowed for bulk ordering of materials, and standardization of design and environ- mental requirements helped accelerate the permitting process for each project from approximately 6 months to no more than 1 month (ODOT 2015a). Alternative Contracting Methods ODOT had limited experience using ACMs. The department had completed only one project using D-B, and it did not receive authority to use CM/GC until 2007, 4 years after the OTIA III program commenced. As part of its plan to address deteriorat- ing bridges along alternate routes, ODOT decided early to use D-B to accelerate the most important projects. The two largest projects were the Willamette River bridge and the Sandy River bridge. The original Willamette River bridge had suffered significant deterioration to the extent that ODOT had to implement load restrictions on the structure before the new bridge project even began. ODOT completed a temporary detour bridge in 2004 and decommissioned the old bridge. The Willamette River bridge is on I-5, the major north-south route through Oregon. Detouring traffic around the old bridge, sometimes for more than 150 miles, was a critical issue; thus, a permanent replacement bridge was an urgent need. ODOT and OBDT selected CM/GC to deliver the new Willamette River bridge project. The decision to use CM/CG was based on ODOT’s desire to accelerate construction. In addition, the high level of public and local agency interest and involvement made it critical for ODOT to retain design control. The awarded contractor would have to con- struct temporary structures and would need to provide transparency and open communication not only with ODOT but also with local agencies and the traveling public (ODOT 2007). After selecting the designer and the contractor, ODOT brought in CM/GC experts from Arizona and Utah and experts from the FHWA to conduct a one-day panel discussion on the effective use of CM/GC. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife had strict in-water work regulations to protect threatened and endangered fish species in the section of the Sandy River near the proposed bridge project. ODOT used a version of cost-plus bidding (e.g., A+B) that it called A+C+D (cost-plus-qualifications-plus-work plan). Contractors had to demonstrate their qualifications to perform work subject to in-water work time constraints and involving environmental issues. Contractors had to submit a completed bid package, and the awarded contractor had to have a detailed work plan in place. During the first year of the project, the site experienced heavy rains that caused a major debris dam to form upstream of the bridge work. The bridge work could not be left in place during the winter months, because flooding would threaten businesses and homes in the area. In the end, ODOT, OBDP, the contractor, and the design engineer worked together to redesign the superstructure; they used a girder launching system to eliminate as much in-water work as possible. Without the use of A+C+D delivery, collaboration on this solution would have been much more difficult.

49 Program Delivery Performance Performance was measured on a project-by-project basis and at the programmatic level. The following section summarizes the performance measures used to track the progress of the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program and ODOT’s overall success in achieving the five program goals (ODOT 2015b). The first goal was to stimulate Oregon’s economy. OTIA III was first and foremost a jobs bill. It included provisions mandating that ODOT maximize the involvement of Oregon design and construction firms and employees, including small businesses and minorities, to benefit the state’s economy. ODOT measured economic stimulus by tracking the number of direct and indirect jobs that were created or sustained as a result of the OTIA III bridge program. Throughout the duration of the program, 22,000 jobs were created or sustained, with a peak of 1,976 indirect jobs and 1,719 direct jobs created in 2007. In addition to jobs, ODOT helped create a more diverse, skilled, and experienced construction workforce by using apprenticeship training programs. The state acknowledged that the bridge program work benefited much more than just the firms involved with construction. Many material suppliers and manufacturers experienced increases in trade, and other local businesses—such as hotels, restaurants, and grocery stores—noticed increased sales owing to frequent use by con- struction workers. The second goal was to employ efficient and cost-effective delivery practices. This goal was achieved by using D-B and CM/GC and by bundling bridges as single projects. The expedited programmatic permitting process alone is estimated to have saved the program more than $70 million. Expenditures and schedules were two performance measures that ODOT tracked throughout the program. The former included a comparison of planned versus actual expenditures for each year of the program. Figure 27 summarizes the results. In many years, actual expenditures exceeded planned expenditures, but that was because ODOT completed more bridges in those years than originally planned. FIGURE 27 Cumulative planned vs. actual expenditures per year of OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program (Source: ODOT 2015a). The third goal of the program was to maintain freight mobility and keep traffic moving. To meet this goal, ODOT devel- oped a three-tier approach to managing traffic from the project, corridor, and statewide levels to minimize construction disruptions for motorists, truckers, businesses, and communities (ODOT 2015b). A work zone traffic analysis tool was developed to enable ODOT to set times for lane, shoulder, and roadway closures that would be the least disruptive to traffic movement (ODOT 2010). Additionally, the central office coordinated with the regions to limit the number of simultaneous work zones that motorists would encounter on any of the major highways and interstates. One measure used to track this goal was comparing the planned number of bridges opened in a given year to the actual number (see Figure 28).

50 FIGURE 28 Planned vs. actual total number of bridges opened (Source: ODOT 2015a). The fourth goal was to build projects that are sensitive to surrounding communities and landscapes. The department sought to build safe and sustainable projects while preserving scenic, aesthetic, historical, ecological, economic, and community values (ODOT 2015a), and to extend the financial, social, and environmental benefits from the bridge program into future projects and programs. Achieving this multifaceted goal included gaining political and community acceptance for designs, incorporating feedback from communities and officials, mobility, and the surrounding areas. ODOT had the opportunity to work on almost 300 bridges, and left the worksites in better condition than before construction. The final goal was a mandate from OTIA III for ODOT to capitalize on funding opportunities for the program. To augment the funding for the program, ODOT had to leverage funds without spending state highway fund dollars. ODOT successfully applied for various federal grants and received seven from the FHWA and the Environmental Protection Agency for a total of more than $5.1 million. These funds were used to support seven specific project bundles. Program Delivery Benefits and Challenges ODOT experienced many benefits and some challenges in delivering the OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program. Overall, the pro- gram was considered a success, and the multiple awards it received prove that it was delivered above and beyond expectations. The following two sections summarize the benefits and challenges ODOT experienced in delivering 271 bridges across the state. Benefits Improve Performance Through Bundling of Projects ODOT benefited greatly from its decision to bundle bridge projects together along similar corridors or in geographic locations and to manage the statewide program from the central office rather than by region. This approach enabled the central office to coordinate and organize construction on multiple bridges in the same highway corridor, so that delays were held to a minimum throughout the entire corridor rather than in just one construc- tion zone. The central office monitored construction progress across the state and could step in when problems arose.

51 Effective Use of Economic Stimulus ODOT managed the bundling so that the project bundles varied in terms of cost and number of bridges. A primary goal of the program was economic stimulus, which included the requirement to use state and local designers and contractors to perform the work. Packaging several small bridges as one project in the program enabled more small contractors and disadvantaged business enterprise firms to bid on the work. In fact, the state extended the program by 2 years because there were not enough local contractors to complete the work in the originally scheduled 10-year period. Reduce Permitting Timeline Early in the program, ODOT developed procedures to meet permit requirements for 11 state and federal agencies. By meeting those requirements efficiently, ODOT was able to significantly reduce permitting timelines. Some of the requirements were design-related, such as having all runoff from bridges drain into water treatment facilities or building longer bridges to allow for wildlife passage and more natural fluvial actions. ODOT also worked to standardize some of these design elements and to incorporate some of the federal environmental requirements into the designs. This approach helped reduce permitting time by approximately 6 months. Less Internal Staff Required ODOT’s approach to the program required minimal internal staff. Had the department attempted to replace or repair each of the deteriorating bridges on a project-by-project basis, it would have been severely understaffed and would not have been able to manage the individual projects effectively. The third-party manager—OBDP—provided most of the staff needed for the duration of the program. ODOT was primarily responsible for central office control, which meant that the department had to provide only a couple dozen employees at any time. Although the OTIA III bridge program was a high-profile project that involved massive amounts of money, ODOT still had to deliver its normal STIP. Challenges Using a Third-Party Consultant as a Program Manager OTIA III required ODOT to hire a third-party program manager, but the department had never used consultants as program managers and was concerned about how this would work. An ODOT official said, “Initially, we thought working with a third party program manager would be a major challenge for us.” However, as the program began, ODOT realized that OBDP could be a great help—they were willing and able to work with ODOT throughout the program. With OBDP as program manager, ODOT was able to minimally staff the program; most of the time, ODOT staff handled financing, project and program cash flow, and contract management. Required Organizational Changes OTIA III also required ODOT to use innovative business practices. Normally, project design and construction are the responsibility of the five geographically based ODOT regions. That was not the case for this program. Centralizing the program helped in many ways, but ODOT realized that managing this many projects over a long period would require additional management and coordination processes and procedures, as well as a statewide monitoring program. One innovation was the implementation by OBDP of electronic documents so that information could be shared between the central office and the multiple ongoing projects across the state. ODOT had not previously used eConstruction, so this was a new process to learn. Loss of ODOT Personnel to Private Firms The legislation for the program required ODOT to move as quickly as possible to contract design work for some of the largest and most challenging work in the state’s transportation history (Tindall 2006). This meant that the private sector was going to receive hundreds of millions of dollars of challenging transportation design and construction work over a 10-year period. Soon after the program began, ODOT’s entire bridge section management team and some of its senior bridge engineers left to join private sector firms. Thus, many seasoned employees were now working on the “other side,” which further depleted the already meager internal resources. Working with Environmental Issues The most difficult challenge ODOT faced with the program was working with strin- gent environmental requirements. Once the program was launched, the permitting process would quickly develop a sustained backlog. Some ODOT personnel believe that the permitting alone could have added 10 to 20 years to the time it would have taken to complete 271 bridges individually. To address this problem, ODOT and the FHWA began working with a number of federal and state regulatory and resource agencies in late 2002 to develop permitting strategies that would meet the dual goals of timely review of individual permitting and protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats. This process was a critical component of the program’s success (ODOT 2015a). Closeout of a Very Large Program A couple years into the program, ODOT began researching other state DOTs for exam- ples of how to close out large programs. An ODOT representative said, “The problem was we could not find viable examples

52 for closing out a very large program. We had to work with OBDP to create a new process.” In hindsight, ODOT realized that a number of issues should have been addressed at the beginning of the program to simplify the closeout, such as developing a formal deliverable tracking and archiving procedure. Lessons Learned ODOT provided the following lessons learned about its delivery of the OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program: • Planning is key: ODOT spent a significant amount of time developing the bid documents for the alternative delivery (D-B, CM/GC, and A+C+D) RFPs and revising specifications for alternative contracting. In delivering a program as large as the OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program, extensive planning is the key to success. • Promoting the use of electronic documents: Although the use of electronic documents was a challenge at the beginning of the program, the overall process worked very well. In fact, ODOT is currently in the second year of a pilot program for implementing eConstruction—requiring project managers and inspectors to develop their reports electronically for easier sharing among program parties (ODOT 2014). This process enables employees at regional offices to monitor delays and construction progress in real time, which allows real-time information to be shared with the traveling public. So far, the program has been successful. • Effective use of ACMs: ODOT realized that using ACMs could provide many benefits to the program. Before the OTIA III bridge program, ODOT had completed only a handful of D-B projects and had not used any other ACMs. During the program, ODOT completed 11 project bundles using D-B, one project using CM/GC, and one project using an innova- tive A+C+D bidding approach. All alternatively delivered projects in the program were successfully completed. UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) uses a variety of programs. Program development in UDOT supports four major business actions: (1) transportation system conditions, (2) transportation needs, (3) transportation plans, and (4) pro- gram and project schedule (UDOT 2016b). The UDOT case example focuses mainly on the alternative delivery program that handles all D-B and CM/GC projects. General Information and Program Inventory When a need arises for improvements in the transportation of people and goods (e.g., reduced congestion, improved safety, or external drivers such as political and economic influences), UDOT develops a project or a series of projects to address that need and submits the project or list of projects to the Utah Transportation Commission for review and approval (Utah Transportation Commission 2015). Once UDOT gains approval, the project or program team develops a set of goals. The goals for a program are typically tied to the department’s strategic goals, which are as follows: • Reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities to zero; • Preserve infrastructure; and • Optimize mobility (Utah Transportation Commission 2015). A fundamental goal for all UDOT programs is to deliver a program according to its schedule rather than when it is com- plete. Many times, DOTs will deliver a project when it is ready rather than by a specific date (Keck et al. 2010). By setting a specific completion date and adhering to that deadline, UDOT has been able to gain political support and develop public support and trust in its ability to deliver transportation projects and programs. As UDOT personnel develop the goals for a program, they are aware of the risks involved. Recently, the department has been focusing more on risk management, using various tools to identify risk. The UDOT representative explained that the risk management and allocation process varies depending on the delivery method used for a project or program. Enterprise risk management is a new concept for UDOT; the department believes that it will help identify risks more efficiently for a corridor program or a transportation system component.

53 Program success revolves around achieving goals and maintaining political support. UDOT has gained considerable politi- cal support in recent years as a result of its solid performance in delivering projects and programs. This support is important because UDOT receives almost 70% of its annual funding from the state (UDOT 2016c). In terms of political capital, one DOT official said, “It’s very important to have buy-in not only from legislators but also from DOT employees, the contracting and consultant industry, and the public, which generates trust among entities.” Alternative Contracting Methods In addition to the traditional D-B-B delivery method, UDOT has been using D-B and CM/GC for several years. Typically, the department selects a delivery method for a project between the conceptual and programming phases, using a flowchart approach to select the appropriate method. In a typical year, UDOT constructs approximately 80% of its projects using D-B-B and 20% using ACMs. However, most D-B-B projects are small and focused on preservation. The alternative delivery projects represent 80% of annual funding, which means that UDOT tends to use alternative delivery for large and complex projects. UDOT classifies a mega-project as one that costs more than $50 million; these projects typically use ACMs. The UDOT representative noted that many factors influence the selection of an appropriate delivery method, including project and program size and complexity, risks, speed required to deliver the project or program, and level of innovation required. An interesting aspect of UDOT’s alternative delivery program is that all D-B-B projects rely on cost-plus-time bid- ding to select a contractor, which transfers the schedule risk to the awarded contractor. Program Delivery Performance UDOT measures performance at the program level. The department is decentralized and has four regions. Each region handles its own projects and measures its own performance; however, the central office is in charge of all programs and of measuring program performance. The performance measures include scope, schedule, budget, and quality. UDOT uses an executive dashboard to display the status of projects and programs (e.g., behind schedule versus on schedule, under budget versus over budget) (UDOT 2016a). The program team can make adjustments on the basis of this display to improve project and program performance. The dashboard has collected performance data for quite some time, so UDOT can analyze the data. Data analysis identifies areas in the state transportation system that need improvement. Safety is a critical issue for UDOT; the department enforces strict safety measures and management for every project and program. Program delivery is the most important element in providing safety—as a program is developed, UDOT considers safety not only during construction but also for the traveling public during and after construction. Program Delivery Benefits and Drawbacks The main goal of program delivery in UDOT is to improve the state’s transportation system. Rather than delivering single projects, UDOT develops transportation programs, which offer additional benefits. However, challenges and drawbacks exist and must be addressed to successfully deliver a program. The sections below describe the benefits, challenges, and drawbacks of UDOT program delivery. Benefits Political and Public Support and Trust At the highest levels, programmatic delivery (when conducted properly) can influ- ence a DOT’s level of trust with the public and political officials. When a program is delivered as promised, UDOT realizes substantial value in terms of improving relations with the traveling public and builds important political support and capital. Budget Recovery Process A few years ago, the department began reprogramming unused funds to complete additional work. UDOT calls this approach the budget recovery process. For example, if a project within a program has a $10 million budget but costs only $8.5 million, UDOT has $1.5 million to put back into the program to deliver more work and use its funds more efficiently. Increased Innovation UDOT uses A+B bidding for all D-B-B projects. The use of A+B helps accelerate traditional proj- ects in a program. Prior to implementing the A+B approach, UDOT was developing traffic control plans and schedules for a D-B-B project; however, once the contract was awarded, the contractor would use its own traffic control plans and project schedules. Thus, the information developed by UDOT was rarely used. With the A+B approach, the contractor handles all

54 development planning and scheduling processes, and UDOT selects the contractor that offers the best combination of cost and schedule. The lowest bidder is not always awarded the project. Increased Innovation UDOT has learned that large and complicated projects benefit from the use of ACMs, with their abil- ity to accommodate innovative processes and procedures. Typical D-B-B processes limit innovation, which is not a problem for small and standard projects; however, for larger projects within a program, a UDOT official said, “Innovation influences the overall success of the program.” Challenges Enhanced Quality on A+B Bidding Although A+B bidding provides benefits for program procurement, it also has some drawbacks. UDOT has limited experience using A+B with D-B-B and problems can result from contractors’ developing their own schedules. Typically, the UDOT RFP recommends or even requires that the project schedule be as short as possible, but speed can compromise overall quality. When contractors are working fast to meet an aggressive schedule, the quality of projects or programs may suffer. Required Culture Change Another challenge to program delivery is achieving program goals and associated performance. UDOT has expended significant effort and resources to create a culture in which the department promises to deliver a project by a specific date at a specific cost. Achieving these goals translates into political and public support and trust. A lack of trust and support for a program will make it difficult to successfully complete the program. Lessons Learned The UDOT representative provided the following lessons learned about program delivery methods: • Enhanced integrity: UDOT realized early in its alternative delivery program that it had to ensure that processes and procedures were nearly bulletproof to protect the department. • Clearly defined goals for program delivery: Alternative delivery requires specific program goals. The agency should spend more time developing program goals and objectives and ways to measure performance. • Enhanced relationships with the industry: UDOT relies heavily on the local construction industry and consultants to plan, design, and build programs and projects. The department had to improve its relationships with contractors and consultants to deliver alternative delivery programs. This meant providing information about what is going on and making sure every- one understands the business model UDOT uses. As the industry gains a better understanding of the department, UDOT can be more transparent with the firms, which translates into trust and improved collaboration and cooperation. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview The Washington State Department of Transportation has delivered several very large transportation programs including the I-405 corridor program, a $20 billion master plan program to reduce congestion, increase capacity, and enhance the safety of the traveling public along a 30-mile stretch of the I-405 corridor in the eastern Seattle metropolitan area. The work includes adding new northbound and southbound lanes, developing a bus rapid transit line along I-405, improving arterial streets, cre- ating 1,700 new vanpools, constructing 5,000 new park-and-ride parking spaces, building eight new pedestrian and bicycle crossings over the freeway, increasing local transit by 50%, and adding a managed lane system to the interstate. General Information and Program Inventory WSDOT works through a set of priorities that can be maintenance driven, congestion driven, safety driven, or motivated by a variety of other needs and priorities. Once a program is developed, WSDOT submits a request package to the legislature. If the legislature agrees with the package, it passes funding bills for the entire program or portions of the program. The I-405 corridor program received funding of $20 billion. WSDOT has a series of strategic goals that represent the department as a whole. These goals are dynamic and change over time in response to input from stakeholders on how to improve the department’s business activities. The WSDOT strategic goals for 2014–2017 are as follows:

55 • Strategic investments, • Modal integration, • Environmental stewardship, • Organizational strength, • Community engagement, and • Smart technology (WSDOT 2015). The program goals focus on addressing key issues and priorities. For the I-405 corridor program, the strategic department goals are embedded in the overall performance goals, but the following program-specific goals address the unique needs of the project: • Improving traffic congestion, • Increasing freeway capacity, and • Improving the safety of the interstate and surrounding arterial streets (WSDOT 2002). For the I-405 corridor program, WSDOT assembled a strategic advisory board made up of national experts to help set program goals that would complement the department’s strategic goals. This board also helped WSDOT develop individual project goals designed to complement the specific programmatic goals. To assist with implementation and decision making, WSDOT created several committees representing local jurisdictions and resource agencies located along the I-405 corridor. (Table 6 lists these jurisdictions and agencies.) These committees have helped build ongoing community and political support along the corridor, which translates to overall support for WSDOT and the state legislature. In addition, the committees offer an avenue for continuous outreach, to draw attention to the delivery of each project and communicate with stakeholders (SHRP 2 2011). The primary committees that have helped plan, implement, and make decisions for the program are the executive commit- tee, the steering committee, and the citizens’ committee. The executive committee includes 21 upper management officials from WSDOT, lead agencies, the Washington State Transportation Commission, and the Transportation Improvement Board; elected officials from local jurisdictions; and state legislators (SHRP 2 2011). To ensure objectivity, this committee does not include representatives from the resource agencies listed in Table 6. The executive committee acts as an avenue for political support and input as well as an access point for legislators to be part of the decision-making process. TABLE 6 JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN I-405 CORRIDOR PROGRAM COMMITTEES Local Jurisdictions Resource Agencies Other Agencies City of Renton City of Kirkland City of Bellevue City of Hunts Point City of Bothell City of Redmond City of Woodinville City of Tukwila City of Kenmore City of Mercer Island City of Newcastle City of Lynnwood City of Clyde Hill City of Kent Town of Yarrow Point Snohomish County King County U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Washington Fish and Wildlife U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Washington Department of Ecology Puget Sound Regional Council Community Transit Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development Source: SHRP 2 (2011). The steering committee includes 35 senior technical representatives from area municipalities and environmental and regulatory agencies, as well as the transportation service providers from all local jurisdictions and resource agencies listed in

56 Table 6 (SHRP 2 2011). The lead agencies of the steering committee include staff members who also serve on project teams. The steering committee has been a crucial component in the decision-making process for the corridor program, and buy-in from the jurisdictions and agencies has improved the overall success of the program. The citizens’ committee has 38 representatives, including volunteers from business; environmental agencies; freight, modal, and neighborhood groups; and other citizens interested in the program. The citizens’ committee allows individuals and interested groups not represented by the jurisdictions and agencies listed in Table 6 to be involved in the decision-making process. WSDOT and the three committees used the decision-making process shown in Figure 29. FIGURE 29 Decision-making process for I-405 Corridor Program (Source: SHRP 2 2011). Alternative Contracting Methods In addition to the traditional D-B-B delivery method, WSDOT is authorized to use D-B and CM/GC. The department gen- erally uses ACMs for a project on the basis of a request. At this writing, WSDOT had completed 28 D-B projects and had embarked on its first CM/GC project, the Seattle Multimodal Terminal project. The first projects under the I-405 program were completed in 2007. In the middle of 2015, WSDOT began implementing the project delivery selection matrix tool developed by the Colorado DOT in 2011. The process compares project characteristics, goals, constraints and risks with various factors to determine the optimal delivery method for a project. WSDOT says the process is not complicated and provides an objective approach to selecting a delivery method. According to a WSDOT official, “Every project in WSDOT is now required to use the project delivery selection tool.” WSDOT has used D-B-B and D-B to deliver the projects within the I-405 corridor program. One of the factors that has influenced the use of D-B is the acceleration of design and construction. Another factor is the risk management process, in which a number of key risk factors are transferred to the design-builder, alleviating WSDOT’s own risk exposure. Depart- ment representatives say that D-B results in better cost management and cost certainty, and helps manage the workforce. D-B requires fewer in-house staff members, but it is not a staff reduction tool. For example, if WSDOT decided to a deliver a large program such as the I-405 corridor program, the department would have to increase staff by a couple hundred people. Program Delivery Performance WSDOT measures performance at the project and program levels. At the project level, the department measures performance on a monthly basis in terms of deliverable cost, schedule, and budget. Upper management and executives typically evaluate

57 and monitor certain projects (e.g., high-profile and high-risk projects) on a quarterly basis. WSDOT measures whole program performance on the same yearly basis or for every legislative session. Information collected and measured for the I-405 program shows that WSDOT has consistently delivered every project on time. The use of ACMs allows design to overlap with construction and improves collaboration among team members, leading to accelerated schedules that deliver projects on time or even early. In terms of budget, costs for the I-405 program are either on budget or under budget. A bonus of the I-405 legislation is that any savings from individual projects stay with the program. WSDOT can reinvest those savings to perform more work, accelerate schedules, or get a head start on planning or right-of-way acquisitions and environmental requirements for future projects (WSDOT 2016). Another performance feature of the I-405 program is that the contingency amounts were set low for most projects (4% or less). Program Delivery Benefits and Challenges With a program of this size and magnitude, the program team and the individual project teams were bound to reap benefits and encounter challenges. The following sections discuss the benefits and challenges of the I-405 corridor program. Benefits Use of a Corridor-Level Final Environmental Impact Statement The corridor-level final environmental impact statement (EIS), which was the first of its kind in the United States, established the footprint, foundation, background, and overall mas- ter plan concept for the entire program. The EIS helped WSDOT comprehend the overall needs of the corridor and helped gain program support and long-term planning support within the department and from relevant agencies and communities. The final EIS established the footprint of the program, which meant that individual projects did not have to go through a full environmental assessment for permitting purposes. Input from Program Committees Another benefit of the program was that WSDOT created a number of supportive com- mittees, including the executive committee, the steering committee, and the citizens’ committee. The composition of the executive committee (high-ranking officials and political representatives) has been key to the success of the program. Keeping these people engaged and informed through open and transparent communication helps ensure that nothing slips below the radar. This has been an effective way to build and maintain consensus throughout the corridor. Advanced Community Outreach Another aspect of community outreach has been public meetings with community and neighborhood groups. Each project handles its own hearings and meetings with the public, and each has a structure and protocol to follow. WSDOT estimates that more than 100 meetings and hearings have taken place since the beginning of the program. Public information staff support these public outreach efforts by creating documents and helping communicate important information to neighborhoods and communities that will be affected by construction. Use of General Engineering Consultant WSDOT also hired a general engineering consultant (GEC), which is essentially an extension of department staff, to help manage the delivery of the program. WSDOT calls on the GEC to perform tasks that department staff used to perform themselves. The benefit of the GEC is having expert staff perform tasks for a limited period at a fixed price. Standardized Design The program committees have helped with the creation of design criteria, architectural standards, and other design items that enable WSDOT to maintain consistency among the projects. Having the basics for design criteria in place helps the department manage each project within the overall master plan and footprint of the program. Challenges Strategizing Funding for the Program WSDOT has always known that the entire $20 billion budgeted for the program would not be forthcoming quickly or all at once. The challenge has been to develop a program that addresses as many projects as possible as it receives funds. With help from the program committees, WSDOT strategized by exploring various funding scenarios and different recommendations the legislature has provided to move forward. This process helps the department use the funding effectively and efficiently. Continuous Community Support One of the most significant challenges of this large program is to ensure that the program has ongoing support from communities and agencies along the corridor, as well as the necessary political and legislative sup-

58 port. Maintaining a focus on communication with all key stakeholders was paramount, especially as it could be affected by changes in leadership within WSDOT and in the state legislature. To address this challenge, WSDOT developed strong part- nerships with all agencies and transit groups along the corridor, and worked constantly to maintain trust by communicating any changes to these agencies and seeking their help to move the program forward. Lessons Learned The WSDOT representative provided the following lessons learned about the program delivery methods: • Promote the use of ACMs: Although WSDOT recognized the benefits of using ACMs, the program team realized early on that it would have to gain support throughout the department for the use of nontraditional delivery methods. The team had to facilitate a culture change so that everyone would accept the use of ACMs. • Enhance trust and political support: WSDOT believes that developing and maintaining fundamental support can make or break a program. The I-405 corridor is a $20 billion program that will take at least 20 years to deliver. WSDOT has had to learn how to establish ongoing support within the department and from outside stakeholders for a large program that requires substantial amounts of money over a long period. SUMMARY This chapter includes case examples of seven DOTs across the United States that have used strategic program delivery. The DOTs included in the study have had a wide variety of experiences in delivering programs. Although they have used vari- ous approaches and processes for their programs, the research team realized that several key features are the same or similar for these seven DOTs. For example, most of the interviewees mentioned the importance of community outreach, developing and measuring program goals, centralizing the management of a program, developing and using standardized design, and stimulating the economy. In addition, DOTs learned similar lessons, such as being flexible with design, gaining political sup- port and capital, and effectively using ACMs. The following chapter summarizes the major findings from the case examples.