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.
73 Constructability Review Literature Review The research team reviewed 42 documents related to CR as a part of its initial research effort (see Table 7). This includes the applicable CR policies and procedures documents from 24 state DOTs. In addition, a number of published technical papers on CRs and the AASHTO Constructability Review Best Practices Guide were also reviewed. The findings from this review point to the following conclusions: â¢ A majority of state transportation agencies perform construction-related reviews on their projects, however, there are significant inconsistencies relative to how the reviews are con- ducted, the intent and focus of the reviews, when they are conducted, the extent of the reviews, and who performs the reviews. â¢ CRs can include âbiddabilityâ aspects as well as âbuildabilityâ aspects and the terms are often used interchangeably in the literature. â¢ CRs rely heavily on the ability to obtain experienced construction personnel to perform the reviews. Participation from construction contractors knowledgeable of equipment require- ments, production schedules, and the economics of constructing the project significantly enhance the CRs. However, this also creates a situation of potential conflict of interest and contractors may be reluctant to âtip their hand.â As a result, many states either employ their own internal construction personnel for CRs or allow all contractors access to participate in the external CRs and typically do not pay for them for their time. Some states have partnered with local construction societies such as Associated General Contractors to obtain construction- knowledgeable personnel to participate in the CRs. â¢ Some states have formal policies about which projects are required to have a CR; how- ever, there are many references to discretionary application of CRs on an as-needed basis as determined by the project teams on large, complex, or issue-ridden projects. How- ever, very little specific information is available about when a discretionary CR should be performed. â¢ Many states have developed certain guidelines or checklists for the reviewers to follow; however, the consistency of information and thoroughness of the checklists vary greatly. â¢ Very few states have any system in place to track the efficacy of their CR program. States with formal CR policies track whether a CR was conducted or not and some states track the total number of CRs performed, but there is little information being collected regarding the implementation of CR comments, reduction in change orders, or cost and time savings resulting from the CRs. â¢ Little or no specific connections or references are made between the stateâs CR program and other design and project review processes such as VE or RA. C h a p t e r 4 Constructability Review Research Results
74 applying risk analysis, Value engineering, and Other Innovative Solutions for project Delivery No. State/Publisher/Author Title of the Literature/Report Date 1. Arkansas Design-Build Guidelines and Procedures April 2006 2. Oregon Constructability Reviews September 6, 2001 3. Alaska Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual November 15, 2013 4. California Constructability Reviews; and Project Development Procedures Manual February 26, 2010; March 20, 2014 5. Virginia Concurrent Engineering Constructability Review Guidelines July 1, 2007 6. Connecticut Constructability Review Program June 2009 7. Indiana Constructability Guide Book June 12, 2010 8. Idaho Constructability Review Guidelines July 2011 9. Alabama Guide for Developing Construction Plans May 29, 2014 10. Florida Construction Project Administration Manual July 7, 2014 11. Montana Constructability Review Procedures September 17, 2004 12. Louisiana Construction Plans â Quality Control/Quality Assurance Manual; and Plan Constructability/ Biddability Review for Large Projects September 2013; May 15, 2008 13. New Jersey Construction Management â Constructability Undated 14. Utah Constructability Review Guidelines April 18, 2005 15. Georgia Plan Development Process March 30, 2015 16. North Carolina Value Management Program Policy and Guidelines March 2015 17. Colorado Project Development Manuals January 31, 2013 18. New York Constructability Review April 26, 1999 19. Pennsylvania Project Planning & Scheduling Workbook April 2004 20. North Dakota Plan Reviews June 1, 2009 21. Michigan Construction Advisory â Constructability Reviews; and Road Design Manual November 5, 2009; February 18, 2010 22. Massachusetts Highway Division Construction Contract Procurement and Oversight, Internal Audit Report July 22, 2011 23. Kentucky Transportation Center Tools for Applying Constructability Concepts to Project Development November 2012 24. Mary Beth Herritt, Chief, Caltrans Office of Project Development Advanced Modeling Techniques for Enhanced Constructability Review: A Survey of State Practice and Related Research 2012 25. Jesus Mora, Caltrans Division of Design Advanced Modeling Techniques for Enhanced Constructability Review, Phase II: A Survey of State Practice and Related Research 2014 26. AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction Constructability Review Best Practices Guide 2000 27. James F. McManus, Nathalie A. Phillip, John F. Stanton, George M. Turkiyyah A Framework for the Constructability Review of Transportation Projects 1996 (Updated in 2007) Table 7. CR documents reviewed.
Constructability review research results 75 No. State/Publisher/Author Title of the Literature/Report Date 28. Nikiforos Stamatiadis, Paul Goodrum, Emily Shocklee, and Chen Wang Quantitative Analysis of State Transportation Agencyâs Experience with Constructability Reviews 2013 29. Umberto C. Gatti, Giovanni C. Migliaccio, and Linea Laird Design Management in Design-Build Megaprojects: SR 99 Bored Tunnel Case Study 2014 30. James F. McManus and John A. Gambatese Constructability: A Quality Improvement Approach to Transportation Projects 1997 31. Sarah Picker Constructability: A case study in Transportation Project Delivery: San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge New East Span 2002 32. Paul M. Goodrum, Donn E. Hancher, and Mohammed Yasin A Review of Constructability Barriers and Issues in Highway Construction 2003 33. Gabriel Raviv, Aviad Shapira, and Rafael Sacks Relationships between Methods for Constructability Analysis during Design and Constructability Failures in Projects 2012 34. Deborah J. Fisher, Stuart D. Anderson, and Suhel P. Rahman Integrating constructability tools into constructability review process 2000 35. James F. McManus, Nathalie A. Phillip, John F. Stanton, and George M. Turkiyyah A Framework for the Constructability Review of Transportation Projects 1996 36. Timo Hartmann and Martin Fischer Supporting the constructability review with 3D/4D models 2011 37. Baabak Ashuri and Hamed Kashani Recommended Guide for Next Generation of Transportation Design Build Procurement and Contracting in the State of Georgia 2012 38. Phillip S. Dunston, John A. Gambatese, and Benefit-Cost Model for Highway Department Constructability Reviews 2002 James F. McManus 39. AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration Guidelines for Design for Constructability 2003 40. Kevin J. Thompson Constructability Reviews for Structures Projects 2009 41. Walter Kelly Construction Bureau's Roadway Plan Review undated 42. FHWA Work Zone Operations Best Practices Guidebook 2012 Table 7. (Continued). Constructability Review Surveys A formal CR Survey was distributed to construction contact representatives from various state DOTs on August 17, 2015. A total of 41 survey requests were sent out and 19 were completed for a total response rate of 41%. The survey on CRs provided interesting information regarding the practices of transportation agencies and how constructability is evaluated. Generally, most transportation agencies do not have a formal CR policy or program. There is typically no prescribed process or procedure for
76 applying risk analysis, Value engineering, and Other Innovative Solutions for project Delivery conducting CRs; however, common issues explored include construction staging, utility conflicts, and technical issues. For those respondents who do use CRs, they are generally regarded as having a positive effect on project delivery and helping to control quality, scope, cost, and schedule. The vast majority of agencies conducting CRs have internal staff with specific expertise and provide very minimal training. Rarely are external staff involved in CRs. Formal CRs are generally not inte- grated with VE or RA exercises and are commonly conducted as standalone events. The following is a summary of the findings of the survey: â¢ Division/Office/Bureau responsible for CRs is split evenly between Design, Construction, and Other areas of the organization. The Other areas within a transportation organization were the following: â Both Design and Construction â Central Estimate Support and Construction Offices â Technical Services/Value Management â Asset Management and Performance Bureau â¢ More transportation organizations did not have a formal CR policy (59%) than those that did have a formal policy (41%). â¢ For those organizations that did have a formal CR policy most were recently updated between 2010 and 2012. One agency had updated as recently as March 2015 while the oldest update was 2001. â¢ Most transportation organizations do not have a formalized CR unit; 35% indicated that they have a formal group conducting CRs. â¢ Most transportation organizations (82%) indicated that they do not have an established dollar threshold for conducting a CR. â¢ Those organizations that do have a formal CR policy indicated that all projects must undergo a review. Other agencies indicated that costs in excess of $500,000 was a threshold that triggers the need for a CR. â¢ The key considerations reviewed during a CR include project phasing, staging complexity, utility challenges, new/advanced technical challenges, and environmental challenges. Some transportation agencies indicated CRs were a means to help reduce project costs. â¢ The primary application in which a CR is conducted is for review of Highways/Bridges proj- ects. Other applications included review of construction claims, construction change order analysis, and conformance with design/construction standards and guidelines. â¢ Respondents generally indicated that most project managers see the benefits of CRs and believe they have a positive impact on project delivery. â¢ All responding transportation agencies indicated general agreement with the following: â CRs are a performance or a quality improvement method. â CR are a cost control and management method. â CRs are a schedule control and management method. â CRs help to reduce project uncertainties (risks) and unforeseen scope, schedule, and cost issues. â¢ Most CRs are conducted on Final Design/PS&E, although a significant portion of reviews were conducted during Environmental Studies/Preliminary Design. â¢ Many transportation organizations (59%) do not have a prescriptive checklist of the types of participants that should be involved in a CR. It was generally indicated that disciplines should be selected based on the specific project type and challenges under review. â¢ Approximately 87% of transportation organizations that do conduct CRs indicated that they were internally facilitated. The remaining 13% indicated that CRs were both internally and externally (consultant) facilitated. â¢ CR teams are either commonly internal organization team members (40%) or a combination of internal and external (consultant) team members (40%).
Constructability review research results 77 â¢ Approximately 87% of respondents indicated that no advanced modeling techniques or soft- ware are used when conducting CRs; however, respondents indicated that when software or modeling is used they use 3D, 4D, traffic modeling, and roadway design software. â¢ Approximately two-thirds of respondents that conduct CRs do not have a prescriptive checklist of activities to perform when conducting a CR. â¢ For the one-third of organizations that did have a checklist, the following were the most commonly indicated items to review in order of frequency: â Construction Staging (including maintenance of traffic, work zone) â Physical Conflicts (i.e., utilities, structure footings, existing roadways, etc.) â Construction Phasing â Biddability â Technical Complexity â¢ The following key project documents for conducting a CR were indicated in order of priority: â Plans â Estimates/Bid Items â Specifications â Construction Contracting Language â¢ When conducting CRs, responding transportation agencies indicated it is common to use a combination of both hard copy and electronic documents, inclusive of the key project documents identified above. â¢ Of the responding transportation agencies with a CR process, the following applied: â Approximately 47% indicated they use a specific documented comment capture and resolution method. b The method used commonly consisted of comments in electronic written form and mark-ups of drawings and contracting language. â Only 20% maintain a formal CR Management System that tracks information and data obtained from the reviews. â Approximately 47% indicated that there is a formal feedback loop for sharing information with project management, design, and construction. â¢ CRs are performed in conjunction with VE 27% of the time, with 47% of respondents indicating that it is determined on a case-by-case basis. â¢ CRs are performed in conjunction with RA 31% of the time, with 31% of respondents indicating that it is determined on a case-by-case basis. â¢ Transportation agencies who conduct CRs indicated the following percentages for training: â 7% always provide training â 20% sometimes provide training â 60% never provide training â 13% provide training on a case-by-case basis Summary and Conclusions One of the most interesting observations made by the research team regarding CR is how it exists and is thought of as an activity that is unrelated to RA (and VE for that matter) by the majority of DOTs. The concept of âconstructabilityâ is inherently one that deals with risk related to the construction of a project. For some reason, presumably historical, there remains a division between the practice of CR and RA despite the fact that constructability issues are, in essence, risks. The practice of CR continues to focus primarily on a review of bid documents, although some DOTs apply different levels of CR at earlier points in the project delivery process. The research
78 applying risk analysis, Value engineering, and Other Innovative Solutions for project Delivery team believes that CR needs to be merged with RA (and, potentially, with VE). This would seem- ingly offer a number of benefits: â¢ Elimination of separate, redundant activities â¢ Review of construction-related risks at earlier points in project development â¢ Enhanced visibility of construction-related issues during the earlier design phases â¢ Additional tools to help identify and develop solutions to constructability issues The research team has concluded that the following considerations should guide the develop- ment of a CR tool: â¢ Develop an approach to integrate CRs with RA and VE. â¢ Develop a master CR checklist that synthesizes the numerous CR checklists developed by DOTs over the years. The majority of DOTs do not possess standardized checklists of CR issues. These shall be organized in such a way that they can be readily applied at various points in the project delivery process to raise relevant CR issues and identify related risks in a timely and effective manner. â¢ Provide guidance to DOTs on how to leverage Risk Response Planning and VE techniques to identify and develop solutions to mitigate or avoid constructability risks.