Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods, Volume 1: Design–Build Delivery (2020)

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.

    38    processes prevents the agency from reverting to processes and tools used for traditional delivery. In many cases, it is not a matter of making minor adjustments to existing D-B-B processes but of implementing totally new processes. Adopting, disseminating, and explaining organizational goals and strategies like those presented here help to demonstrate long-term commitment. Additionally, an agency demonstrates long-term commitment when implementing a plan of continuous improvement with the D-B related organizational strategies. This continuous improvement involves evaluation of the D-B strategy by tracking implementation and measuring performance. Strong commitment at the organizational level helps provide a framework for D-B to be successfully implemented at the project level. Organizational Goal 2: Assign Roles and Responsibilities An organization can make progress on strategies when people within the organization know their roles and responsibilities relating to those strategies. The roles and responsibilities of leaders within a D-B project include:  D-B coordinator – A D-B coordinator is involved in the procurement of every D-B project within the agency.  ACM officer – An ACM officer supports project managers in all aspects of procurement and contract administration.  Discipline-specific leads – These agency level leaders should understand how the D-B process will change reviews into an iterative process incorporating contractor feedback on cost and schedule.  Upper level administrators – Upper level administrators can incentivize staff performance by emphasizing the implementation of D-B processes on D-B projects.  D-B Champion – An agency staff member who advocates for proper implementation of D-B practices on a project. This could be a designated agency staff member on the project team, or the ACM officer. Creating and improving strategies requires a commitment of time and resources. The most efficient way to ensure success is for the agency leaders to assign and train team members to direct and monitor implementation. Agency staff should be involved throughout this process to incorporate varying ideas, opinions, and areas of expertise. However, team members taking the lead should be clearly identified. Assigning roles and responsibilities minimizes confusion and ensures that strategies needed to reach the implementation goals are being actively managed. Organizational Goal 3: Assess and Adjust Current Strategies Assessment can occur at two different times. The first time is before D-B processes or policies are in place. The second time is after implementing D-B processes. In either case, agency leaders want Successful D-B construction administration will require agencies to assign champions who have adequate time and resources to be successful.

    39    to understand the current organizational environment which will help reveal opportunities for improvement. Assessment areas are current policies, procedures, and guidance documents that affect D-B contract administration. It is also important that the leader determines if the written agency guidance is being followed, or if there are unwritten rules that are being used. Feedback from agency personnel can reveal what is working well and what needs improvement. Document review and feedback from agency personnel will identify areas of strength and areas for improvement. The assessors should look for D-B-B delivery processes that do not fit the goals of a D-B project, as this becomes a primary area for innovation and change. Once D-B processes are in place, the leader’s assessments focus on whether agency personnel are effectively using the new D-B processes, if there are obstacles to effective implementation, or if agency personnel are reverting back to D-B-B processes. An assessment can show changes in the procurement process to strengthen alignment during contract administration. Alternatively, an assessment can show a gap in responsibilities or an overlap in roles. If processes are not implemented consistently, guidance may not be clear and training may be needed. After evaluation of the existing strategies, the leader can begin incorporating new information and ideas from this Guidebook. Ideas for improvement may come from the strategies for contract administration in Chapter 2 or from the tools presented in Chapters 3–7 and Appendix A. Updating existing policies, procedures, and guidance documents with new strategic approaches will convey long-term commitment and will promote a consistent approach to D-B projects. Organizational Goal 4: Communicate Agency Direction for D-B Contract Administration Gaining the support of agency personnel is an important step to successfully implement new strategies. This involves establishing a clear understanding of the new strategies and their benefits. The strategies in Chapter 2 provide a roadmap for an agency’s D-B direction. These strategies provide a framework for the creation of agency-specific goals. For example, the Alignment strategy can provide for a group of programmatic goals that focus on the types, sizes, and levels of complexity of projects for which an agency will use D-B. The Design Quality Strategy can provide for direction reviews and analysis of alternatives and innovations. Agency leaders can host agency-wide workshops as an effective way to communicate an agency’s new or evolving approach to D-B contract administration. Workshops should focus on informing agency members of forthcoming internal changes and expected long-term benefits. Interagency memos and newsletters are other ways to communicate information and reinforce the agency’s goals. The specific roles and responsibilities among individuals and team members will vary throughout the agency, as discussed below.

    40    Organizational Goal 5: Train Organizational Team Members When agency members have been informed on why new strategies are being introduced, they need to understand how to participate and contribute. Training can cover goals, approach, processes, benefits, and differences from D-B-B. Agency personnel involved in training at the organizational level include personnel involved in procurement, contract administration, payment, and compliance. Procurement personnel will need to understand about alternative technical concept (ATC) processes, the time commitment involved in one-on-one meetings, how to respond based on performance specifications, and confidentiality. Personnel involved in contract administration need to know their role during design and construction to ensure design quality and construction quality. Personnel involved in payment must understand how measurement and payment applies to lump sum payments and how to document compliance with federal requirements for federally funded projects. The training discussed here is at the organizational level. Agency personnel at the organizational level are frequently the first to be involved with a D-B project, and it is important they implement the correct approach at the earliest stages. Individuals at the organizational level may not adopt as many tools as those at the project level. To achieve effective D-B delivery, organizational level personnel must understand and implement the agency’s D-B approach as consistently as personnel at the project level. Organizational Goal 6: Develop a Method to Measure and Evaluate Performance It is crucial for the agency to develop a method to measure and evaluate the D-B program’s performance to ensure goals are met and continuous improvement occurs. In developing a performance measurement methodology, an agency should consider:  What will be measured?  How will it be measured?  Who will perform the measurement?  When will the measurement occur?  What will be done with the results? Agency leaders can use multiple performance criteria to measure the effectiveness and success of the D-B program. These performance criteria include measuring if projects are being completed on budget, on schedule, and with minimal disputes. Current performance can be compared with the historical performance of the D-B program or with the performance of the traditional D-B-B program. D-B training, at both the organizational and project level, will increase the probability of successful project delivery.

    41    In any performance analysis, decision-makers should understand the context of the data. Projects of similar size and complexity should be compared. Any unusual circumstances regarding environmental issues, utility conflicts, right-of-way acquisition, and political issues should be factored into the analysis. Assessments can include a cost performance evaluation comparing the original agency estimated costs to the awarded and final costs. This allows the agency to observe and potentially minimize the percent growth of project costs throughout the various stages. However, data must be analyzed in light of many variables. For example, during a time when there is a rise in construction prices, an agency estimate developed from historical prices may not provide an accurate estimate. Much like the project costs, the agency should strive to minimize or eliminate the schedule growth of a project to reduce overhead costs and road user costs. Schedule variation analysis should take into account the agency’s method and assumptions in estimating a schedule compared with a contractor’s method and assumptions. Additionally, impacts of unknown conditions, agency change orders, or situations outside the contractor’s control should all be considered when analyzing schedule data. Performance assessments can include a dispute evaluation that can provide the agency with feedback on the quality of project documents and communication with the D-B team. Measuring the number, type, and cost of disputes will help agencies identify opportunities to improve project delivery. Other performance criteria include safety, quality, mobility, and environmental impacts. Measuring and evaluating D-B performance can help an agency continuously improve D-B contract administration. Agency leaders must assign the responsibility of performance measurement and evaluation to an individual or a team to ensure it is being conducted consistently. Adequate time and resources must be dedicated to this function, which can be performed internally or contracted out to an independent evaluator. The agency also must determine the frequency of evaluation. Frequency options include continuous measurement, or cyclical (monthly, quarterly, annually, end of project). Monthly assessments could include partnering evaluations. Monthly, quarterly, and annual evaluations can provide data on how a project is progressing in terms of budget, schedule, and changes. End of project evaluations allow the project team to compare their project to benchmarks or other projects. The frequency of evaluation will vary from agency to agency depending upon program maturity and need, but it is important to select a timeframe and remain consistent. It is difficult to go back in time to collect data, so at the beginning of each project a decision should be made on what data will be collected and how frequently that data will be gathered. Measurements becomes useful when they are followed up by analysis and actions that lead to continuous improvement.

    42    8.3 Project Level – Goals The project level goals focus on introducing and embedding new tasks and processes into a project. During the data collection of this study, one agency summarized their DB project goals as:  Be goal oriented: make decisions based on goals.  Be flexible: open to new ideas, not prescriptive.  Be an empowered team: team members that have authority to make decisions.  Be confidential: this promotes trust and competition during procurement.  Be bold: don’t just administer contracts, be a partner in solving problems. In this spirit, this Guidebook describes project goals for implementing the strategies and tools described within. Project Goal 1: Assess Existing Tools Agencies have a vast institutional knowledge of D-B-B tools. The purpose and implementation of these tools is sometimes documented and sometimes unwritten. These tools have benefited from years of use and improvement, while familiarity makes their implementation second-nature in many agencies. Some D-B-B tools can be used with D-B. However, when D-B processes and goals differ from D-B-B, then specific D-B tools should be used. Cost, schedule, quality and other benefits of D-B can be lost when D-B-B tools are misapplied to the D-B process. Therefore, a project team must work collaboratively to implement D-B contract administration tools to achieve the full benefits of D-B delivery. If an agency has never implemented a D-B project, agency leaders and project managers should first identify contract administration functions that differ from D-B-B. An agency can select tools, develop tools, or adapt tools to perform those D-B contract administration functions. If an agency has implemented D-B projects, tools currently being used on D-B projects should be identified and reviewed. Even if these practices are not currently referred to as tools, they may be considered tools. A definition of a tool repeated from Chapter 1 is provided to help clarify what constitutes a D-B contract administration tool: Definition of Tools: A tool is used to perform an operation. In this Guidebook, it is a tactic or process relating to D-B contract administration, such as checklists, spreadsheets, guidelines, and structured meetings. When the project team has a list of available tools from past agency experience, a comparison can be made between the tools currently in use and those included in this Guidebook. Project team members should ask questions about existing tools such as:  “Can the purpose and implementation of existing tools be described better?”  “Can existing tools be improved to perform better?”  “Is an existing tool suited for D-B-B, but not D-B, and should it be removed from the D-B tool kit?

    43    Project team members should ask questions about tools from the guidebook such as:  “Should we adopt this tool from the guidebook?”  “Are there tools in the guidebook that we can adapt to better meet our project needs?” Improvements to D-B contract administration can occur by improving existing tools, adopting or adapting new tools. An agency should investigate all of these options during the tool assessment. Project Goal 2: Identify Appropriate Tools based on Project Characteristics To effectively deliver D-B projects, the agency and D-B project team should select tools that fit the project characteristics. The tool descriptions in this Guidebook include recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the tool for various project sizes and complexity levels. Some tools are widely applicable, whereas other tools may be most appropriate for a project of a certain size or complexity. For example, the tool that identifies roles and responsibilities, 2 Roles and responsibilities, is appropriate for all project sizes, whereas the tool 4 external stakeholder coordination plan is most applicable to project sizes over $10 million. The tool 12 Plan standards, is most appropriate for complex projects, whereas the tool 17 In-progress design workshops, is most appropriate for moderate to complex projects. Typically, tools that are appropriate for small and non-complex projects are appropriate for larger and complex projects as well. However, tools appropriate for large and complex projects may not make sense in terms of cost/benefit for small, non-complex projects. Project Goal 3: Train Project Team Members When D-B goals, approaches, processes, benefits, and changes have been communicated to agency personnel, the agency project manager needs to introduce more specific training programs at the project level. Project team members need to understand their specific roles and responsibilities for implementing tools for D-B contract administration. Project team members should be trained on the D-B contract administration tools they will be using and the details for their proper implementation. Training should extend to project managers as well as field and office staff. Training also should be provided to consultant staff representing the agency during contract administration as if they were a part of the agency. Training may need to occur at various times during the life of a project as new individuals are on-boarded, or as weaknesses in tool implementation are observed. These can include lack of tool use, incorrect tool use, or inconsistent tool use. Specific topics to include in the training to implement tools for D-B contract administration are:  Tool Purpose (Why is it used?)  Tool Function (What does it do?)  Tool Timeline (When is it implemented?)

    44     Tool Resources (Who is involved?) The use of new tools for D-B contract administration is effective only if tools are implemented properly throughout the life of the project. Training is the foundation for proper and consistent implementation of tools for D-B contract administration. Project Goal 4: Test New Tools An agency should test new tools for D-B contract administration before incorporating them. New tools can be tested on a pilot project to help team members analyze and better understand each tool, and how the tool can be customized to fit the agency’s processes. For example, the tool 5 Co-location of key personnel may occur daily in a physical location for agencies with a high volume of D-B projects in urban areas where engineers and contractors are located. In contrast, an agency with many D-B projects in rural areas may redefine co-location to happen through regular internet meetings supplemented with weekly face-to-face meetings. The agency can also test new tools in parallel with similar tools already in use. Such a side-by- side comparison of performance can facilitate the identification of strengths and weaknesses. In summary, it is important to analyze, test, and modify a tool on an agency’s projects prior to including that tool in policy, procedure, or guidance documents. Project Goal 5: Evaluate the Performance of Tools The agency project manager should evaluate performance of project tools on a regular basis, and those evaluations should be incorporated into the project team’s “lessons learned” summary, typically at the end of the project. This allows all team members to provide insight and perspectives on how the tools functioned, and how they can be improved. This ensures that the tools evolve if an agency’s project delivery needs change. Regular evaluation for continuous improvement can help the tools perform to their maximum potential. 8.4 Agency D-B Contract Administration Training Training related to D-B delivery and tools for D-B contract administration can occur through formal training sessions, workshops, meetings, manuals, written materials, and informal interactions with people experienced in D-B contracting methods. D-B contract administration will convey to project personnel knowledge about roles and responsibilities, tool implementation, and documentation. Training should always distinguish D-B goals and processes from D-B-B. Initial training will occur early in the project development. Additional training can be provided during later project phases as new team members join the project or as the need for refreshers on D-B tool implementation become apparent. Time and effort is required to develop a good training meeting. An agenda should be designed to address training goals, and handout materials and visual aids should be gathered to support the agenda objectives. People with experience with D-B contracting should be involved in delivering the training. At a meeting or workshop, short scenarios can be provided to small groups to discuss

    45    the roles of various team members. For example, a scenario regarding the QA activities for a bridge deck can be shared and the responsibilities of each stakeholder reviewed. The intent is to provide everyone with a bigger picture about what is trying to be achieved by seeing an activity through the eyes of multiple stakeholders. Additionally, this can highlight how all tasks associated with quality assurance may get done but with different team members performing different roles than in a traditional delivery method. All project team members as well as agency management involved in approvals should be invited to the training. Upper level support for the training should be visible. Everyone in the agency should see that the organization has a culture with a long-term commitment to successful D-B contract administration. Agency D-B manuals can be used to train agency staff and others to provide a uniform understanding on how the agency intends to implement D-B projects. When D-B delivery is new within an agency, the agency project manager of a D-B project may need to meet with individuals within functional groups to provide information on D-B roles, responsibilities, and processes. As an agency gains experience with D-B, training should not stop, but get more targeted to reveal more details of D-B delivery. Additionally, agencies should use their experience to fine-tune tools for D-B contract administration based on the specific context of each project. 8.5 Summary This chapter introduces the recommended approach to integrating and implementing the concepts found it this guidebook at both the organizational and project level. Establishing and achieving these implementation goals will assist in improving the agency’s execution of D-B projects. There is no one perfect strategy or tool that will lead to success. Each agency must develop their own approach to fit within their organizational and project needs. To consistently achieve project success agencies are encouraged to integrate and implement the concepts found in this guidebook and provide training to agency personnel and project stakeholders. Additionally, agencies should develop a culture that is open to change and supports innovation in order to fully realize the benefits of D-B and other ACMs.

Appendix A Contract Administration Tools    A‐1  Appendix A: Contract Administration Tools This appendix contains descriptions of all the contract administration tools discussed in this guidebook. Tools may be used in one or more phases as indicated in Table A-1 presented later in this section. These tools were identified through D-B project case studies with numerous agencies and a state of practice review of all existing state DOT D-B guidebooks. Each tool description is organized according to the format listed here:  Tool number and name o The number is for quick identification of the tool in this guidebook and the name is intended to reveal the nature of the tool.  Brief description o This includes one or two sentences to give the reader a quick overview of what to expect in the remaining description.  What is it? o This contains an expanded description of the tool.  Why use it? o This explains the purpose of the tool and lists its potential benefits. This section also discusses the contract administration strategies that the tool addresses. The five contract administration strategies were first presented in Chapter 2 with their unique graphics.                            When to use it? o Here you will find a table that indicates in what contract administration phase(s) the tool could be used. The table also summarizes guidance from up to 16 experts (including agency leaders and practitioners, industry, and academic) that reviewed each tool. These D-B experts provided feedback regarding whether the tool is considered useful (recommended, considered case-by-case, or not recommended) for various D-B project sizes (<$10M, $10-50M, >$50M) and complexities (non- complex, moderately complex, complex). Please note that recommended does not mean required; an agency should use their own discretion on whether or not a tool is appropriate for a particular project.  How to use it? o This provides information about how to implement the tool successfully in your project.

Appendix A Contract Administration Tools    A‐2   Synthesis of examples o This summarizes tips and implementation guidance found when analyzing the case study project examples. This section is included when applicable.  Examples o The examples are real projects that have used the tools. The examples include text and tables that show how an agency used the tool on a recent project. Sometimes multiple examples are provided to show alternative ways of implementing a tool. This variety is intended to encourage the reader to adapt the basic tool to meet their own agency and project needs.  References o This provides a list of written and web resources where the reader can find more information about the tool. Since some of these tools are relatively new, there may not be many resources beyond this guidebook in some instances. Each tool description begins with a header in bold font. The footer has the tool name to remind the reader what tool description they are in.

Appendix A Contract Administration Tools    A‐3  Table A-1 Tools for agency use in D-B contract administration Contract administration phase Page number Tools for D-B contract administration A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n C lo se ou t 1 Kickoff meeting  49 2 Roles and responsibilities  53 3 Confidential one-on-one meeting  59 4 Glossary of terms  68 5 Co-Location of key personnel   70 6 Regulatory agency partnering   73 7 External stakeholder coordination plan   76 8 D-B specific partnering     81 9 Continuity of team members     86 10 FHWA involvement overview     92 11 Permit commitment database     96 12 Plan standards  100 13 Deviations from agency standards  103 14 Discipline task force  106 15 Independent party design review  109 16 Cost savings matrix  112 17 In-progress design workshops  116 18 Over-the-shoulder reviews  119 19 Scope validation period   123 20 Public announcements    128 21 Delegation of authority    135 22 Contractor controlled QC testing  138 23 Contractor involvement in establishing QC standards  141 24 Incentive/disincentive program for superior quality  144 25 Real-time electronic quality management information  153 26 Dual construction engineering inspector roles  157 27 Witness and hold points  163 28 Payment checklist   168

1 Kickoff Meeting    A‐4  1 Kickoff Meeting This is a meeting where the project participants are introduced to the project and each other. Aspects relevant to a D-B project are discussed, including roles and responsibilities, quality management processes, review processes, schedule, schedule of values, and payment processes. What is it? The kickoff meeting is the first team meeting. For a D-B project it is an opportunity to introduce the agency’s team and discipline specialists to the D-B team members. Other project stakeholders that may participate include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if it is a federally funded project, representatives from other entities that are associated with the project, such as cities and counties, utility companies, and regulatory agencies. Discussion topics typically include a project overview, with an emphasis on project challenges and constraints. Even when team members are experienced with D-B, it is important to review the changed roles and responsibilities associated with the D-B process to help align everyone’s understanding. Quality management processes, review processes, time constraints, potential innovations, risks, and pricing may also be discussed. Why use it? The kickoff meeting provides an opportunity to create early team alignment around project goals and processes. It creates a time and a place for team members to discuss how they will execute the D-B project. The meeting is an opportunity to set up a project framework that assists the team in being successful. For example, the team can develop and communicate project processes, like ensuring design quality. For federally funded projects, the team can discuss FHWA involvement. Regulatory constraints and permit requirements can also be reviewed. Potential benefits include setting up the stage for construction input in design to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation, flexibility during design and construction, developing a basis for a shared risk allocation and facilitating the resolution of third party issues (e.g.; utilities, permits). A kickoff meeting addresses both the alignment strategy and the scope strategy. It helps establish clear project goals and create productive relationships within the agency, and between the agency and D-B team members. The meeting allows project stakeholders to begin communication during the early stages of the project, developing effective lines of communication and working relationships early on. The meeting also helps ensure the project scope (as described in the RFP) and responsibilities are understood and agreed upon by all parties. During the meeting, any discrepancies or areas of uncertainty can be identified and resolved.

1 Kickoff Meeting    A‐5  When to use it? This kickoff meeting should take place a few weeks after the notice to proceed (NTP) of the D-B project. Even when project team members have worked on D-B projects, the kickoff meeting is valuable for generating a common understanding of this project’s team, so that team members are operating on a commonly agreed upon process, not assumptions. It is recommended to have a kickoff meeting for projects of all sizes and complexities. Table A1 Recommended uses for kickoff meeting Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 1 Kickoff meeting         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? The agency and D-B project manager plan the one-day workshop together. Everyone involved in the project from the design, construction, and agency sides should be invited. Documents should be prepared in advance to present the scope of work, potential project issues, proposed schedule, proposed schedule of values, and documents for any other relevant tasks. A meeting summary should be prepared and distributed afterwards. A partnering meeting can be paired with the kickoff meeting or held separately. Synthesis of Examples The kickoff meeting brings together project team members from the agency, the D-B firm, consultants, and outside stakeholders such as FHWA, the Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife, local jurisdictions, and utility representatives. Agency personnel include the D-B program liaison, the project manager, resident engineer, field and office personnel, discipline reviewers, inspectors and other project team members. Team members from the agency, consultants, and the D-B firm are expected to remain with the project through all project phases. The facilitator of the kickoff meeting varies. It could be the agency’s D-B program manager or project manager, or co-led with the D-B project manager. The kickoff meeting may last 4 to 8

1 Kickoff Meeting    A‐6  hours or longer depending on project complexity. Typical topics on the agenda for a kickoff meeting include:  Provide introductions.  Identify key participants in the delivery process and discuss their roles and responsibilities.  Introduce key elements of the scope and innovations.  Provide project background information such as current status, goals, unique issues including environmental concerns or utility conflicts, ROW acquisition, available studies and reports.  Discuss the overall design and construction schedules, major activities, milestones, and phasing.  Discuss the project budget, schedule of values, and payment processing.  Discuss communications protocol, team meetings, change management processes and issue resolution processes.  Discuss design reviews.  Discuss potential D-B risks and possible mitigation strategies.  Partnering meeting objectives are sometimes combined with the kickoff meeting.   1 Example 1 Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Design-Build Manual Georgia DOT used the project kickoff meeting to establish a culture of partnering, and to introduce project participants to one another and to the project. An outline of the agenda for a kickoff meeting is provided in GDOT’s D-B Manual as follows: The innovative delivery project manager (ID-PM) is responsible for facilitating the post-award kickoff meeting. This “partnering” meeting plays an important role in the success of the project. Typical participants include the ID-PM and representatives from the D-B Team, FHWA (for Project of Division Interest projects) and GDOT’s District Construction Office. Other participants may include key stakeholders, as necessary, from the Office of Bridge Design, Office of Right-of- Way, Office of Utilities, Traffic Operations, Utilities, the local government, and any affected utility owners. This meeting is intended to:  Provide introductions;  Identify key participants in the delivery process;  Discuss key elements of the scope;  Provide any project background information;  Discuss the overall schedule;  Discuss anticipated submittals;  Discuss the Schedule of Value and payment processing;

1 Kickoff Meeting    A‐7   Discuss communications protocol(s); and  Discuss potential Design-Build risks and possible mitigation strategies. References Georgia Department of Transportation (2016). Design-Build Manual, Revision 4.2, 10/3/2016 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/DesignManuals/DesignGuides, accessed November 25, 2017.

2 Roles and Responsibilities    A‐8  2 Roles and Responsibilities A description of roles and responsibilities for D-B. What is it? Clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of project participants in alternative contracting methods is a significant aspect of defining each participant’s expected scope of work. It could take the form of a table or a list. When parties share responsibility, primary, secondary, and collaborative responsibility may be indicated for the contractor, designer, and agency/other. This can also be referred to as a Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) chart. The responsible person performs the activity, the accountable person makes the decision, the consulted person provides feedback, and the informed person receives updates.  Why use it? Defining roles and responsibilities can help clarify who is involved in a project and who is responsible for various activities. This can facilitate better understanding of project expectations between the contractor and designer. It also helps ensure each task has a team member taking responsibility for it. Responsibility is also associated with risk, so it helps clarify who owns what risk. Defining roles and responsibilities helps the D-B better quantify the level of effort and costs of work they are responsible for. Similarly, it helps the agency identify tasks they will be undertaking for the project so they can plan for adequate resources to perform those tasks. The potential benefits include Construction input in design to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation. Roles and responsibilities addresses both the alignment strategy and the scope strategy. The scope strategy includes a clear understanding of responsibilities and the alignment built toward productive relationships as team members fulfill their responsibilities. Sample RACI Chart 

2 Roles and Responsibilities    A‐9  When to use it? A clarification of roles and responsibilities is included in the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), Request for Proposals (RFP), and preconstruction and construction contracts. This tool is recommended for projects of all sizes and for moderately complex to complex projects. It can be considered for use for non-complex projects as needed. Table A2 Recommended uses for roles and responsibilities Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 2 Roles and responsibilities         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? The agency defines roles and responsibilities that can be summarized in a matrix to include in the RFQ and RFP. This way, all proposers are working off the same assumptions regarding roles and responsibilities. One role would be the D-B champion who trains new team members on the distinctive D-B aspects of the project and keeps the team on-track with applying the D-B process throughout the project. Another role is the D-B document specialist who serves as the agency’s point of contact to receive, distribute, store, and organize project documents. The document specialist also reminds agency staff and the D-B what documents are needed and by when, and what reviews are needed and by when. Upper management support for a D-B is deemed critical to success. Therefore, the role of upper management is to support D-B projects and processes tangibly and visibly, for example, with D-B training and the appropriate level of staffing. Frequently D-B projects are moving on fast schedules. Therefore, review times become critical. Reviewers must be made aware of the contractual review times, which are frequently shorter than standard review times. Also, 18 Over-the-shoulder reviews must be attended by reviewers who are authorized to make project decisions to keep the design advancing. For projects with performance specifications, reviewers must understand their role in checking performance specifications are met while avoiding introducing their own preferences into the review comments.

2 Roles and Responsibilities    A‐10  Synthesis of examples Clearly defining each project participant’s roles and responsibilities communicates the expectation of each party, which ultimately improves the overall effectiveness of the project. How this information is conveyed takes many formats. A very general approach is the RACI chart, which identifies which party is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed with regards to different project responsibilities. Other formats use a variation of this approach, such as defining which party has the primary, secondary or no responsibility to simply identifying which party is or is not responsible. Some agencies develop a responsibility chart(s) that is released with a project’s RFP so that outside consultants can plan accordingly when submitting their bid for a project, while other agencies develop responsibility charts that are used for internal control purposes. Finally, responsibility charts can be used to define roles and responsibilities for an overall project or for specific phases of a project, depending on the project’s overall complexity. 2 Example 1 I-405, NE 6th St. to I-5 Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) A responsibility matrix was included in the project RFP (shown below). This matrix highlights responsibilities for the design-builder, the agency, and the toll vendor for the three phases of design, procurement, and construction. Responsibility Matrix Item Element / Task / Component / Subsystem Description Design-Builder WSDOT Toll Vendor Comment and Other Responsibility Notes Design Procurement Installation / Construction All Phases Design Procurement Installation / Construction 1 Toll Gantry P P P S S N S Design-Builder shall design, furnish and install overhead structures. Toll Vendor will review and comment on all designs related to toll equipment 2 Toll Equipment plus mounting hardware S N S S P P P Toll Vendor will design specifications for equipment mounts and furnish and install all mounting brackets, hardware and all Toll Equipment. The Toll Vendor will be responsible for all hardware and cabling

2 Roles and Responsibilities    A‐11  for the Toll Equipment. 3 All signage, sign supports and mounting P P P S N N N The Design-Builder shall be responsible for all signage related activities. 4 Roadside toll cabinets and foundation P P P S S N S The Design-Builder shall be responsible for design, procurement and installation of all roadside toll cabinets. 5 Toll reader equipment cabinets (if required) P P P S S N S The Design Builder shall be responsible for design, procurement and installation of the toll reader equipment cabinet, if required. See the Technical Requirements in another section. 6 Stub-out for vehicle detection P P P S S N S The Design-Builder shall provide a stub- out at each Toll Zone for Toll Vendor use as needed for vehicle detection. 7 Loop lead-ins and in-pavement elements for vehicle detection S S S S P P P Toll Vendor will design and install lead-ins and in- pavement vehicle detection as needed. 8 Transformer and cabinet including foundation P P P S S N S The Design-Builder shall be responsible for providing the prime power and the electrical connectivity (including conduit and panels) to all roadside toll cabinets. 9 WSDOT fiber optic network connection to the roadside toll cabinet P P P S S N S The Design-Builder shall design, procure, and install necessary equipment, conduit, and wiring from the

2 Roles and Responsibilities    A‐12  WSDOT fiber optic backbone to the network switch inside the roadside toll cabinet. The Design-Builder shall provide and install a network switch in all roadside toll cabinets. 10 Conduits P P P S S N S Design Builder shall provide conduits between the roadside toll cabinet and the Toll Gantries and to the vehicle detection stub-outs in the lane(s). 11 Toll Equipment and cable wiring S N S S P P P The Toll Vendor will furnish and install all cables and wiring required to fully connect and operate the Toll System between the roadside toll cabinet, toll reader equipment cabinet and all Toll Equipment. Legend: P = Primary responsibility - The identified party has the primary responsibility for completion of the item. S = Support / Coordination - The identified party provides either support or coordination with the party responsible for primary completion of the item. N = No Responsibility - The identified party has no action for the item. 2 Example 2 Lahaina Bypass1B-2 Project, Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) & Federal Highway Administration – Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-CFLHD) The Design-Build contract included a description of the responsibilities of the Design-Build team and the agency. CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Description of Work Responsibilities

2 Roles and Responsibilities    A‐13  Design-Builder (Contractor) Responsibilities – The Contractor shall be responsible for all work as described in these RFP documents. The scope of work includes design, construction, maintenance during construction, project management, project scheduling, quality control/quality assurance for design and construction, material sampling and testing, obtaining permits, and coordination with other governmental agencies and entities including federal, state, local governments, and communication with the public regarding ongoing and upcoming construction activities. CFLHD Responsibilities – CFLHD is the representative for the owner, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). CFLHD will perform management activities and oversight of the Contractor’s construction and design operations and end products, to satisfy the Government that the Contractor meets the contract requirements. Included in the oversight activities will be design reviews, oversight of quality management plan, construction acceptance, independent verification testing activities, and oversight of maintenance of traffic and environmental compliance as outlined in this RFP. HDOT Responsibilities – The HDOT will provide input to CFLHD to assure that the project design and construction conforms to HDOT standards, as outlined in this RFP. References Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). I-405/NE 6th Street to I-5 Widening and Express Toll Lane Project, Request for Proposal, July 25, 2011, Appendix Z2 [Online]. Available: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/ProjectContracts/DESIGNBUILDCONTRACTS/NE% 206TH%20ST%20TO%20I-5/Default.htm, accessed Dec. 16, 2017.

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐14  3 Confidential One-on-One Meeting A meeting held with the agency and contractor during the Request for Proposals (RFP) stage, typically used in discussing Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs). What is it? A confidential one-on-one meeting is a conference between the agency and the contractor in which the contractor presents potential ATCs. The agency then provides general feedback as to whether the ATC will be considered during the proposal process. Although this tool is implemented prior to contract administration, it is an important tool for establishing a foundation of alignment that the project team can further build upon throughout design and construction. Why use it? Confidential one-on-one meetings allow contractors to present potential ATCs. These help facilitate alignment of contractor proposals with the agency’s project goals. The confidentiality of the meeting is necessary to facilitate innovation and open communication. Additionally, the contractor saves resources by not pursuing ATCs of no interest to the agency. The potential benefits include innovate design solutions, more constructable project designs, more appropriate risk allocation, and enhanced value engineering, Confidential one-on-one meetings guide the contractor to a better understanding of project characteristics including, but not limited to; the agency’s project specific goals, potential project risks, and what type and magnitude of innovations the agency is interested in considering. These meetings aid the agency in understanding what ATCs they are likely to receive from proposers, such as different methods of construction based on experience or equipment, standardized design elements to eliminate waste, and design or processes to permit winter work. This allows the agency to recognize if additional clarifications are required for proposers, prepare potential RFP amendments, and assists the agency in the eventual determination of “equal or better,” which is pivotal in the ATC process. Confidential one-on-one meetings allow both parties to clearly express ideas and constraints. They also can create alignment between the agency and the contractor. These meetings can initiate the foundation of trust and demonstrate an agency’s desire for innovation and willingness for collaboration. Confidential one-on-one meetings address the alignment, scope and construction efficiency strategies. The scope strategy includes a clear understanding of responsibilities and the alignment build toward productive relationships as team members fulfill their responsibilities. The discussion of ATCs in one-on-one meetings will almost always result in more efficient means and methods of construction.

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐15  When to use it? The confidential one-on-one meetings are used during the procurement phase, typically for projects in which ATCs are being considered. Agencies normally only have one meeting per contractor, though some require one meeting and then provide as many meetings as desired by the contractor. Table A3 Recommended uses for confidential one-on-one meetings Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 3 Confidential one-on-one meetings         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended Confidential one-on-one meetings are part of the larger ATC process as shown in Figure D3-1 below. This figure gives a visual representation of when the confidential one-on-one meetings should be held in relation to the entire ATC process.

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐16  Figure D3-1: ATC Process (Modified from National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 455)

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐17  How to use it? The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and RFP should include guidelines for confidential one-on- one meetings. To execute these meetings the agency must acquire a meeting space of sufficient size to fit all attendees, and one that is equipped to allow presentation of potential ATCs. Attendees can include a facilitator familiar with the process (usually from the agency), agency representatives involved with procurement and future contract administration, and people of specialties that may be impacted by the ATCs presented (e.g., environmental officer, structural engineer, designers). All attendees should be invited in advance. The specialty representatives may attend via phone or online conferencing if they are not located locally. Confidentiality of these meetings is critical. All agency attendees should be notified that no information from an ATC meeting is to be shared and all documentation, including any notes and meeting minutes, are not to leave the meeting. These rules should also be reiterated at the initiation of the meeting. When the contractor presents potential ATCs, the agency should only comment on the ability of the agency to consider the ATC presented; no RFP clarifications, ATC guidance, or ATC rating discussions should occur. Having the meeting in a third-party location is suggested, but not required, as it may further encourage open discussion and collaboration. Synthesis of examples The general meeting agenda is as follows: 1. Introduction a. Ensure confidentiality b. Review flow and duration of meeting c. Review types of questions that should be asked d. Review agency allowed responses 2. Contractor presentation of ATC 3. Agency response to ATC a. Cannot be entertained b. Can be entertained c. Requires more clarification (Attempt to resolve all clarifications during meeting if possible) 4. Loop 2 and 3 until all ATCs have been presented 3 Example 1 MD 404 – US 50 to East of Holly Road Project, Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA) This project used confidential one-on-one meetings to review ATCs developed by the design-build team proposers. Guidelines for these meetings were presented in the project RFP. 2.08.02 Pre-Submittal Requirements 2.08.02.1 Mandatory One‐On‐One Meetings

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐18  The Administration will require mandatory one‐on‐one meetings with the Reduced Candidate List (RCL). The purpose of these meetings will be to discuss issues and clarifications regarding the RFP and/or the Proposer’s potential ATC submittals. The Administration reserves the right to disclose to all Proposers any issues raised during the one‐on‐one meetings, except to the extent the Administration determines that, in its sole discretion, such disclosure would impair the confidentiality of an ATC or would reveal a Proposer’s confidential business strategies. Each meeting will be held independently with each Prospective Proposer on the RCL. The one‐on‐one meetings are subject to the following: a. The meetings are intended to provide Proposers with a better understanding of the RFP. b. The Administration will not discuss any Proposal or ATC with any Proposer other than its own. c. Proposers are not permitted to seek to obtain commitments from the Administration in the meetings or otherwise seek to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over any other Proposer. d. No aspect of these meetings is intended to provide any Proposer with access to information that is not similarly available to other Proposers, and no part of the evaluation of Proposals will be based on the conduct or discussions that occur during these meetings. The Administration reserves the right to disclose to all Proposers any issues raised during the one‐on‐one meetings which require addenda to the RFP. The Administration, however, will not disclose any information pertaining to an individual Proposer’s Proposal, ATCs, or other technical concepts to other Proposers. 3 Example 2 Wellwood Avenue over Route 27 Project, New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) The RFP for this project contained detailed descriptions of confidential one-on-one meetings. These guidelines can help set expectations about the meetings and consistency in executing the meetings. A9.0 ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS Prior to and/or after submission of Proposals, the Department may conduct One-on-One meetings with Proposers as described below. If One-on-One meetings are held, they will be offered to each Proposer. The Department reserves the right to disclose to all Proposers any issues raised during One-on-One meetings. However, the Department will not disclose to other Proposers any information pertaining to an individual Proposer’s technical concepts, Proposal or ATCs. The Department will hold One-on-One meetings on matters it deems appropriate.

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐19  A9.1 MEETINGS DURING PROPOSAL PERIOD If the Department decides that One-on-One meetings should be held, they will be held between the Department and each Proposer. The period indicated in this ITP Appendix A for these meetings is subject to change. Specific meeting dates will be confirmed in advance of each meeting by the Department to each Proposer’s Representative. At least five (5) business days prior to the first scheduled meeting each Proposer may submit suggested agenda items for each One-on-One meeting to the Department’s Designated Representative. The Department will advise the Proposer of the location, final agenda, and the protocol for the meeting at least two (2) business days before the meeting. ATCs may be discussed at One-on-One meetings. Each Proposer may request One- on-One meeting(s) with the Department to discuss general concepts for potential ATCs or obtain preliminary feedback from the Department, to be held prior to the ATC submittal deadline. Should a One-on-One meeting be scheduled with a Proposer, the Department will offer the opportunity for a One-on-One meeting with the other Proposers. The Department may also schedule One-on- One meetings with any Proposer that has submitted ATC(s), to allow the Department to fully understand the ATC(s) and to request clarifications. At any meeting, the Department may seek clarifications regarding previously submitted ATCs. If a Proposer requests additional meetings, or if the Department considers it desirable or necessary to schedule additional meetings, the Department may, in their discretion, schedule any such additional meetings. The Department may, in its sole discretion, issue one or more Addenda to address any issues raised in the One-on-One meetings. A9.2 POST-PROPOSAL MEETINGS The Department does not currently anticipate the need for post-Proposal discussions, but reserves the right to enter into discussions and request revised Proposals. If interviews or presentations occur, Proposers shall not modify their Proposals or make additional commitments regarding Proposals at such meetings. The Department anticipates engaging in limited negotiations with the selected Proposer prior to Contract award regarding such matters as are deemed advisable for negotiations by the Department. The selected Proposer shall have no right to open negotiations on any matter that has not been raised by the Department. A9.3 STATEMENTS AT MEETINGS Nothing stated at any meeting will modify the Instructions to Proposers or any other part of the RFP unless it is incorporated in an Addendum or, in the case of an ATC, approved in writing. 3 Example 3 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Design-Build Manual MnDOT uses confidential one-on-one meeting to enhance communication and build alignment. MnDOT’s D-B Manual provides guidance on conducting confidential one-on-one meetings. One-on-one meetings between (MnDOT) and design-build teams are used to improve communication during the procurement process. The primary purpose of these meetings are to

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐20  allow design-build teams to discuss potential ATCs and Pre-Accepted Elements (PAEs) with MnDOT prior to making a formal submittal. This minimizes effort on both MnDOT and design- build firms drafting ATCs and PAEs that have a limited chance of being approved. The one-on-one meetings should not be used to discuss clarifications or have the design-build teams gain additional insight into the process. Clarification questions need to be submitted to MnDOT in writing via the clarification process. The number and frequency of the one-on-one meetings will depend on the size and complexity of the project. The Project Manager (PM) and Design-Build Project Manager (D-BPM) will jointly determine the number and frequency. Each design-build team will be offered the same one-on-one opportunity. Listed below are the procedures and protocols for conducting one-on-one meetings. This procedure outlines the one-on-one meeting process with design-build teams. 1) The PM will schedule all one-on-one meetings. MnDOT staff should be limited to the PM, D- BPM and a select group of key experts. On full federal oversight projects, the PM will invite the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to all one-on-one meetings. The size of the MnDOT staff (total) should be limited to three or four individuals. Design-build teams may ask for key experts to attend certain one-on-one meetings to discuss draft ATC or PAE concepts. 2) The content of the one-on-one meeting are confidential to each design-build team and should not be discussed with other design-build teams. 3) The PM will instruct the teams that the purpose of the one-on-one meetings are to provide D- B teams an opportunity to discuss draft ATC or PAE concepts. 4) After a team discusses the draft concept, the PM will inform the team if the ATC/PAE has potential to be accepted or if MnDOT will not entertain that concept. 5) If a team asks clarification questions beyond those related to an ATC or PAE, the PM will not answer the question and will inform the team that the question needs to be submitted as a written clarification. 6) No formal meeting minutes will be taken. 7) Do not provide any handouts. 8) If design-build teams provide handouts, return all handouts to them at the conclusion of each meeting. 3 Example 4 Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) Alternative Technical Concepts Document VTrans alternative technical concept document provided guidance on how confidential one-on- one meetings should be conducted for their projects. In addition, it provided guidance on scheduling the meeting in advance and how the time during the meeting should be allocated. VTrans may conduct confidential One-on-One ATC Meetings with each Bidder to discuss proposed ATCs as determined during the Conceptual and Detailed ATC Submittal. The purpose

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐21  of the One-on-One ATC Meetings are to provide each Bidder with an opportunity to informally discuss potential ATCs and obtain preliminary feedback from VTrans. At least five (5) working days before the scheduled One-on-One ATC Meeting the Bidder shall submit the following information to the VTrans point of contact in electronic format:  A list of personnel that will be attending the One-on-One ATC Meeting and their function on the Design-Build Team (No more than five members may attend the meeting).  A specific meeting agenda presented in outline format. The meeting agenda must be specific in identifying all topics of the meeting which are intended to be presented and/or discussed.  A list of specific questions pertaining to the ATCs. Bidders must submit a list of specific questions which will be discussed at the One-on-One ATC Meeting. If Bidders are presenting a PowerPoint, one (1) CD copy shall be left with VTrans. Bidders shall use their own equipment for the presentation. Each team will be contacted in advance by the VTrans POC to schedule their One-on-One ATC Meeting on the date set forth in the RFP. Meeting Schedule (Conceptual ATCs): The One-on-One Conceptual ATC Meeting for each Bidder will be 1 hour and 45 minutes in length.  45 minutes for presentation of submitted conceptual ATCs and questions/discussion.  30 minutes Break for VTrans internal discussion.  30 minutes for VTrans feedback and general ATC discussion. Meeting Schedule (Detailed ATCs): The One-on-One Detailed ATC Meeting for each Bidder will be 2 hours in length.  1 hour for presentation of submitted conceptual ATCs and questions/discussion.  30 minutes Break for VTrans internal discussion.  30 minutes for VTrans feedback and general ATC discussion. Meeting Guidelines VTrans will not discuss with any Bidder the contents of any ATCs other than its own. Bidders shall not seek to obtain approval from VTrans in the meetings or otherwise seek to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over any other Bidder. Bidders are prohibited from discussing any ATCs with VTrans personnel or VTrans consultants outside of the confines of the One-on-One ATC Meetings. Discussions during the One-on-One ATC Meeting will solely focus on ATCs presented and the manner in which they may affect the Base Technical Concept. Any general clarifying RFP questions should be submitted to the POC as described in the RFP. VTrans reserves the right to change or clarify the RFP based on information or issues raised during the One-on-One ATC Meetings.

3 Confidential One‐on‐One Meeting     A‐22  No electronic recording of any kind will be allowed during the One-on-One ATC Meetings. One-on-One ATC Meeting Attendees Bidders attending the meetings shall have the proper expertise and authority to present ATCs and answer VTrans’ ATC questions. Persons attending the One-on-One ATC Meetings will be required to sign an acknowledgment of the foregoing rules and identify all participants. The Bidder shall bring the signed form to their meeting. All participants must attend in person – conference calls will not be permitted. VTrans meeting attendees may include Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) members, representatives from VTrans Attorney General’s Office, Federal Highway Administration, as well as any appropriate technical experts. References Gransberg D.D., M.C. Loulakis, and G.M. Gad., Alternative Technical Concepts for Contract Delivery Methods, NCHRP Synthesis 455, Transportation Research Board, National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2014, ISBN 978-0-309-27118-9, 2014, pp. 119. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Design-Build Manual, August 2011, Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting (OCIC) [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/, accessed October 1, 2017. New York State Department of Transportation, Wellwood Avenue over Route 27, Request for Proposals, Instruction to Proposers, 2015 [Online]. Available: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business- center/designbuildproject20/repository/D900032%20Instructions%20To%20Proposers%20D RAFT%2020151014.pdf , accessed February 7, 2017. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Alternative Technical Concepts Document, March 2015, Design Build Procedures, Guidelines, and Documentation, 2015 [Online]. Available: http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/contractadmin/documents/designbuild/Alternative%2 0Technical%20Concepts_0.pdf , accessed February 7, 2018.

4 Glossary of Terms     A‐23  4 Glossary of Terms A glossary of terms provides definitions of terms related to activities associated with the D-B contracting method. What is it? A glossary of terms is a collection of words and phrases related to activities associated with D-B. The glossary provides context and definitions for the terms that are not used in a traditional Design- Bid-Build (D-B-B) project. Why use it? A glossary of terms facilitates communication because it provides team members a common vocabulary and understanding of key D-B terms. This is helpful initially for D-B firms proposing on the agency’s projects, and even more importantly to ensure the whole project team is aligned once the D-B firm has been selected. A glossary supports correct interpretation of project communication during all phases of the project, which builds team unity and cooperation. A project glossary also minimizes misunderstandings that can cause unnecessary problems and tension between project team members. Potential benefits of this tool include aligning project stakeholders so everyone involved in the project is “speaking the same language.” Even when team members are experienced with D-B, it is important to review the agency’s (or project’s) glossary of terms to help align everyone’s understanding. A glossary of terms addresses the alignment strategy. It helps establish a clear terminology and create clear expectations between the agency, consultants, and D-B team members. The glossary helps ensure the project scope (as described in the RFP) and responsibilities are clearly understood by all parties. When to use it? It is recommended to have a glossary of terms for projects of all sizes and complexities.

4 Glossary of Terms     A‐24  Table A4 Recommended uses for glossary of terms Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 4 Glossary of terms         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? It is useful to include a glossary of terms in the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) so firms will have a more accurate understanding of the stated scope of work that is being requested by the agency. Similarly, the glossary can be included in the preconstruction services contract and the construction contract. Synthesis of Examples Examples of terms that can be included in a D-B project glossary can be found in this guidebook’s glossary presented in Appendix B. Some agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) include a glossary of terms in the contracts. Other agencies, such as the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), include the glossary in their organization’s manuals. Variations of this tool include agencies dividing the glossary into categories or sections (e.g.; Design, Cost, Schedule, and Administrative). 4 Example 1 West 4th Street Bridge Project, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) A glossary of terms helped the team members on this design-build project have a common vocabulary to communicate with each other. The glossary of terms was included in PennDOT’s Innovative Bidding Toolkit. References Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Innovative Bidding Toolkit, Publication 448, 2013 Edition, Change 2, Penn DOT, Bureau of Project Delivery, Highway Delivery Division Project Schedules, Specifications and Constructability Section, [Online]. Available: http://www.penndot.gov/_layouts/pa.penndot.formsandpubs/formsandpubs.aspx, accessed Sept. 17, 2017.

5 Co‐location of Key Personnel     A‐25  5 Co-location of Key Personnel This tool involves all key personnel being located at the same facility during specific phases of the project, particularly early phases, or for the duration of the project. What is it? Co-location of key personnel requires important project team members to be located at the same facility during agreed upon phases of a project. This tool brings project resources together at one location creating the opportunity for increased communication, improved project quality, greater efficiency, and enhanced project understanding. Why use it? When project team members are located in the same facility it improves the availability and communication of the project team members. This allows for a better understanding of expectations between parties and expedites problem solving and the conflict resolution processes when needed. When using this tool, work is completed more efficiently and with fewer communication-related delays. When co-location does not occur, parties are often disconnected, which can cause confusion and miscommunication that leads to delays. While telecommunication can enhance communication among project team members, in-person communication and team building cannot be replicated by technology. For example, with co-location, impromptu hallway conversations can make positive impacts which regularly scheduled teleconferences cannot replicate. Potential benefits include: actively engaging the contractor in the design phase to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation feedback. Co-location can also lead to schedule acceleration and the ability to fast-track, since frequent communication with key team members allows for faster decision-making. Co-location promotes both the alignment strategy and the design quality strategy by bringing the team together to work in one location and encouraging frequent interaction during design. When to use it? Co-location is a useful tool for any project that requires a high level of collaboration between project team members. This tool can be utilized throughout the entirety of the project, but especially during design. Due to the expense and time commitment associated with co-location, it is recommended primarily for large, long-duration, complex projects. Though co-location is ideal over the life of the project, using it during single phases of the project can be beneficial. During design, co-location can aid in constructability and innovation, and during construction it can benefit decision-making and conflict resolution.

5 Co‐location of Key Personnel     A‐26  Table A5 Recommended uses for co-location of key personnel Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 5 Co-location of key personnel           = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Co-location involves some or all of the project team working in the same facility. This requirement would be specified by the agency in the Request for Proposals (RFP). The team can be located at the agency’s facility, or in a temporary facility at or near the project site. Synthesis of examples When setting up expectations for co-location in the contract, an agency should consider the following:  The location, which could be the agency’s office, the project location, within a certain radius of the project, or in a designated region or metropolitan area.  The minimum key personnel expected to be co-located.  The phases when co-location is required such as design, or design and construction.  The responsible party for providing, furnishing, and maintaining the space. 5 Example 1 I-15/I-215 (Devore) Interchange Improvements Project, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) For this project Caltrans required co-location for project members. The purpose of the co-location was described in the Project Requirements Book 2 document, as shown below. Co-Location Integrated Project Office

5 Co‐location of Key Personnel     A‐27  The Design Builder shall provide space, facilities, and support elements necessary to establish and maintain a co-location office within four weeks of the Notice to Proceed for the Department’s Project staff to co-locate with the Design-Builder’s Project staff in accordance with the Contract. The co-location office shall be used to prepare, submit, review, and process project plans and working drawings in the shortest and most efficient manner possible. The Department will make its personnel assigned to the Design-Build phase of the project available at the office for consultation and “over the shoulder reviews” on site with the Design-Builder’s engineers, detailers, and other staff who are preparing the plans and working drawings. The facilities shall remain the property of the Design-Builder. The Design-Builder shall furnish, maintain, and service the facilities with fuel, electrical power, sanitary services, access roads, and other necessary items. Location xxx Facilities and Space Requirements – Office Staff Co-location office facilities for the Design-Builder and the Department oversight personnel shall provide for locating Design-Builder personnel and the Department personnel in the same building. The Design Builder shall provide and supply the office space and equipment from four weeks after NTP1 until at least 30 Days after Final Acceptance. The Department staff will be subject to 40 hour-work week and working days and holidays in accordance with the State Personnel Administration. General Office Requirements xxx Requirements for Computers and Network Equipment xxx References California Department of Transportation, I-15/I-215 Interchange improvements (Devore), Project requirements, Book 2, April 17, 2012 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/idd/db/devore/rfp/Devore-Project-Requirements.pdf, accessed July 26, 2018. Migliaccio, G.C., G.E. Gibson, and J.T. O’Connor, “Procurement of Design-Build Services: Two-Phase Selection for Highway Projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2009, pp. 29-39.

6 Regulatory Agency Partnering    A‐28  6 Regulatory Agency Partnering Regulatory agency partnering involves improving the communication between the project team and regulatory agencies thus leading to a smoother permitting process. What is it? Regulatory agency partnering involves regular meetings and specified channels of communication. This provides a forum for open and honest communication between regulators, the state transportation agency, and the design-builder assisting with the permit application. These discussions help explain the ramifications of alternatives to meet permit requirements and helps create agreement on possible solutions at the conceptual level prior to submitting detailed permit applications. The goal is to avoid a cycle of back-and-forth exchanges of permit applications, reviews, and denials. Why use it? The purpose of partnering with regulatory agencies is two-fold. First, it helps regulators understand the impacts of construction, rather than leave it up to the regulators to interpret what the impacts will be. This is crucial as contractors can sometimes have a better understanding of the ramifications of various construction options than the regulators who are reviewing the permit applications. Likewise, regulators may have a perspective on environmental or other issues that the contractor needs to hear firsthand. Often, there is no perfect solution to meeting regulations. The goal of partnering is to get the project team and the regulators working together toward a common goal of determining a solution with the least negative impact and one that upholds the spirit of the applicable regulations. Second, by encouraging a dialogue between regulators and contractors, streamlining the permitting process can save time in the project schedule. Partnering and the associated dialogue establishes a working relationship between contractors, who develop construction means and methods, and the regulators, who evaluate those means and methods for permit compliance. By explaining the process and allowing contractors to address the concerns and questions of regulators, the back-and-forth submission of permit proposals and permit denials can be avoided. Permits can be obtained faster and regulators can be assured that the best measures possible are being taken to satisfy their regulations. Potential benefits include cost savings, schedule acceleration, ability to fast track, construction input in design to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation, and facilitated resolution of third party issues. Regulatory agency partnering addresses both the alignment strategy and the design quality strategy. Meetings with regulatory agencies helps the team build alignment between project goals and required regulations. The construction input during D-B provided design serves to engage the D-B actively with the project and the regulatory agencies.

6 Regulatory Agency Partnering    A‐29  When to use it? Partnering is most appropriate on projects involving contractors with a demonstrated commitment to fulfilling project goals, contract obligations, and providing high-quality solutions in favor of the lowest-cost alternatives. Partnering requires that the contractor has intimate knowledge of the design and is engaged in the permitting process. This tool is generally recommended for mid to large size project that are moderately complex to complex. Table A6 Recommended uses for regulatory agency partnering Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 6 Regulatory agency partnering          = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Agencies should first evaluate the design-builder’s ability and willingness to work directly with regulators to develop the optimal, though not necessarily the lowest-cost, permitting solutions. Then, the agency schedules and hosts meetings of all three parties. Initial meetings introduce the regulators to the scope and goals of the project, followed by the sharing of construction alternatives. Regulators are provided an opportunity to present their concerns with the construction plans. The contractor can respond to the regulators concerns and questions and work with the regulator to develop an acceptable solution for permitting. The permit application still needs to be prepared in a complete manner, but the background knowledge gained by the regulator and the early input received from the regulator helps the review process proceed more smoothly. Synthesis of examples Partnering with a regulatory agency can be designed to either simply inform the agency on a specific aspect of a project or to seek input on any issue related to project development. Engaging the regulatory agency early in the project development process will make the approval process

6 Regulatory Agency Partnering    A‐30  more efficient by clarifying critical regulatory issues that are important to both the project and the agency, which will benefit the regulatory approval process. 6 Example 1 Lahaina Bypass 1, B2 Project On this D-B project, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the project manager met with permitting agencies to educate them on the D-B process and why the contractor is involved before design is completed and the permit is issued. References Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Planning and Environmental Linkages Partnering Agreement, USDOT, 2009 [Online]. Available: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/final_signed_partnering_agreement_June09.pdf. Ford, Mark L., NCHRP Web Document 39: Managing Change in State Departments of Transportation, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2001 [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w39-7.pdf, accessed April 13, 2018. Molenaar, K., D.D. Gransberg, and D.N. Sillars, NCHRP Report 808, Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 53. Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Nevada Department of Transportation Partnering Program, N.D. [Online]. Available: https://www.nevadadot.com/doing- business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/operations/construction/partnering-program, accessed April 14, 2018.

7 External Stakeholder Coordination Plan     A‐31  7 External Stakeholder Coordination Plan This is a table that identifies which external stakeholders to involve at various project milestones to ensure that accurate information is conveyed and that stakeholder concerns are taken into account. What is it? This tool provides a plan that outlines stakeholder interaction. The timing of interactions is predetermined which helps prevent key milestones from passing without adequate interaction with stakeholders. The plan also describes who the relevant external stakeholders are for various milestone activities. This ensures that the appropriate people are being contacted about the right topics. The plan also identifies who is responsible for doing the coordination for each particular milestone. Also within the plan, the goal for each stakeholder coordination event is stated so the team can plan interactions that meet those goals. Why use it? Good communication between the project team and the external stakeholders will help the project define important goals and stay on track in meeting those goals. When the project team is proactive in sharing information, it helps prevent the spread of misinformation. Effective external stakeholder coordination can enhance the project and generate public support. This tool provides a plan for the project team to obtain stakeholder feedback at designated times during planning and design when feedback would be most beneficial to the team. When stakeholder feedback is not obtained, stakeholders can become disgruntled. Also problematic is when stakeholder feedback is obtained after a design milestone and then the feedback is either ignored or the team loses time and money in revising the design to incorporate the feedback. Potential benefits include cost savings, schedule acceleration, and owner control of design. External stakeholder coordination plan addresses both the alignment strategy and the scope strategy. Stakeholder coordination works to align the project with the stakeholder needs and the stakeholders with the project goals. Early coordination with stakeholders can help define the scope and regular communication can help prevent scope creep. When to use it? This tool should be developed at the beginning of the project and can be used from planning through design. This tool is recommended for medium to large project sizes, and for moderate complex to complex projects. Smaller and non-complex projects may benefit if there is a significant external stakeholder contingent to manage.

7 External Stakeholder Coordination Plan     A‐32  Table A7 Recommended uses for external stakeholder coordination plan Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 7 External stakeholder coordination plan          = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? At the beginning of a project, the project team identifies key external stakeholders and identifies key milestones when those key stakeholders should be contacted. Contact with stakeholders could include actions like sending information or holding a meeting. External stakeholder coordination can be included in the project schedule and discussed at project meetings so that the plan is effectively carried out. Synthesis of examples An external stakeholder is any outside entity with an interest in a project and who can either affect, or by affected by, the project’s outcomes. External stakeholders include (but are not limited to) the travelling public, local businesses, local government agencies, regulatory agencies, and advocacy groups. Developing an external stakeholder plan ensures that these outside parties are kept in proper communication with the correct information when information is expected to be available. The proper action can either involve one-way communication (e.g., sending a memo or design submittal) or two-way communication (e.g., a meeting or webinar). Most external stakeholder plans define specific milestones when communication occurs during pre or post-award phases. 7 Example 1 Business 40 (Salem Parkway) Project, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) This D-B project is in an urban area of Winston-Salem and entails a shutdown of US 421/Business 40. There are many external stakeholders, including commuters, local businesses, hospitals, the city, and the city beautification non-profit. The coordination plan divides actions into pre-let and post-let phases. A table identifies project milestones, the coordination action, responsibility, meeting invitees, and goals.

7 External Stakeholder Coordination Plan     A‐33  Design-Build External Stakeholder Coordination Plan The Goal of the External Stakeholder Coordination Plan is to systematically engage external stakeholders at the appropriate time in the project delivery process so their input can be obtained, considered, and incorporated as appropriate. Milestone Action Unit / Person Responsible Meeting Attendees Goal Pre- Let 1. Start of Study Letter Send External Scoping Table to external stakeholders Project Manager within Central Project Management Unit N /A Obtain the external stakeholders' input on the External Scoping Table items they would like to be included in the project. The table can be a living document that is filled in and adjusted as the project and external coordination progresses. 2. Prior to Scoping Meeting Set up meeting with external stakeholders to discuss their External Scoping Table response and Design-Build process Project Manager within Central Project Management Unit  External Stakeholders  Central Project Manager  Division  Design-Build  Any other NCDOT staff that may be needed based upon scoping table information obtained Discuss the External Scoping Table, determine cost sharing responsibilities, and establish the list of items / betterments to be included in the preliminary design for the project. Educate the external stakeholders on the Design-Build Process and the Design- Build External Stakeholder Coordination Plan. 3. Preliminary Design Complete Send the preliminary design, and External Scoping Table with quantities and cost estimate for the list of items / betterments included in the project to external stakeholders Project Manager within Central Project Management Unit N /A Provide the preliminary design and External Scoping Table that identifies items / betterments, quantities and cost so stakeholders can see costs and coordinate internally to refine the list of items / betterments to be included in the project. 4. One to three months after sending information noted in item No. 3 Set up a follow up meeting with appropriate external stakeholders to discuss External Scoping Table items, preliminary design, and Design-Build process Project Manager within Central Project Management Unit  External Stakeholders  Central Project Manager  Division  Design-Build  Programs Management Office  Any other NCDOT staff that may be needed based upon scoping table information obtained Verify the cost share and betterment items agreed to at the Scoping Meeting are still valid and / or discuss any revisions that may be needed. Leave meeting with a clear understanding of the items to be included in the Municipal Agreement and Design-Build Request for Proposals (RFP). Also ensure the external stakeholders understand the Design-Build process and the need to meet all upcoming deadlines.

7 External Stakeholder Coordination Plan     A‐34  5. One year before Design- Build Let (Only needed if it has been more than 1-year since the “follow up” meeting noted in item No. 4) Set up a "refresh" meeting with external stakeholders to discuss External Scoping Table items, preliminary design, and Design-Build process Design-Build Unit  External Stakeholders  Central Project Manager  Division  Design-Build  Programs Management Office  Any other NCDOT staff that may be needed based upon scoping table information obtained Verify the items / betterments agreed to at the ”follow up” meeting are still valid and / or discuss any revisions that may be needed. Leave with a clear understanding of the items to be included in the Municipal Agreement and Design-Build RFP. Also verify the external stakeholders understand the Design-Build process and the need to meet all upcoming deadlines. 6. Technical Proposal Submittal Invite external stakeholders to review and comment on design elements and Municipal Agreement items shown in each Team’s Technical Proposal Division  External Stakeholders  Division Obtain external stakeholder comments on design elements and Municipal Agreement items included in each Team’s Technical Proposal. The Division will relay this information to the Technical Review Committee during the Technical Proposal evaluations. 7. Technical Proposal Presentation (Optional Opportunity) Determine if it is beneficial to invite external stakeholders to attend Technical Proposal Presentations Design-Build Unit in consultation with the Division  External Stakeholders  All other Technical Proposal Presentation attendees Obtain external stakeholder comments on the Technical Proposal for each Team. External Stakeholders will give the Technical Review Committee comments immediately following the last technical presentation. Post- Let 8. Award of Project (Optional Opportunity) Set up a meeting with external stakeholders to discuss any anticipated post- award design changes to be requested by the Division / Department Division  External Stakeholders  Division Obtain external stakeholder input on post- award design changes to be requested by the Division / Department. Division has final call on what changes, if any, will be made to the design. 9. Design-Build Team’s Preliminary Roadway Plan Submittal Send a copy of the Design-Build Team’s Preliminary Roadway Plan Submittal to external stakeholders Or Invite external stakeholders to review the Design-Build Team’s Preliminary Roadway Plan Submittal Division  External Stakeholders  Division Provide opportunity for external stakeholders to verify agreed upon design elements and Municipal Agreement items are shown in the Design-Build Team’s Preliminary Roadway Plans. Ensure the stakeholders are aware of the review period duration (usually a maximum of 10- days) and any comments must be provided to the Division before the deadline. Division has final call on what changes, if any, will be made to the design. 10. Any other design submittals deemed appropriate based upon coordination above Send a copy of the design submittal to external stakeholders Or Invite external stakeholder to review the design submittal Division  External Stakeholders  Division Provide opportunity for external stakeholders to verify agreed upon design elements and Municipal Agreement items are shown in the design submittal. Ensure the stakeholders are aware of the review period duration (usually a maximum of 10- days) and any comments must be provided to the Division before the deadline. Division has final call on what changes, if any, will be made to the design.

7 External Stakeholder Coordination Plan     A‐35  References Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), Design-Build Done Right: Federal Sector Best Design-Build Practices, DBIA Nov. 2015 [Online]. Available: https://www.dbia.org/resource-center/Pages/Best-Practices.aspx, accessed February 17, 2018. Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), Design-Build Done Right: Universally Applicable Best Design-Build Practices, v.2, DBIA Feb. 2014 [Online]. Available: https://www.dbia.org/resource-center/Pages/Best-Practices.aspx, accessed February 17, 2018. 

8 D‐B Specific Partnering     A‐36  8 D-B Specific Partnering D-B specific Partnering involves team members and other stakeholders collaborating to form alignment on D-B project goals, issues, roles, and processes to enhance the delivery of the project. What is it? D-B specific partnering usually starts with an initial meeting that brings team members and stakeholders together to begin collaborative discussions on project goals, issues, roles, and processes. Standard partnering tools can be adapted for D-B specific use, such as a roles matrix, issue resolution ladder, project charter, champion, and partnering evaluations. Why use it? D-B specific partnering helps establish a framework for team alignment, communication, and collaboration. Collaborative relationships are based on trust, and trust is based on clear, honest communication. D-B specific partnering helps team members know how to function on the D-B project. The partnering and goal-setting sessions clarify any disconnects or discrepancies in what is to be achieved on the project as well as introduce efficiencies. D-B specific partnering helps communicate and remind project team members of the unique aspects of the roles, responsibilities, and processes in a D-B. For example, the agency’s functional reviewers may need to be introduced to the accelerated review times stipulated in the contract. Additionally, the agency’s field inspectors may need to be introduced to the differences in the role of quality verification versus quality assurance. By the same token, the contractor may need to review their role in having quality assurance performed in addition to quality control. In a D-B project, the contractor may need to be reminded that constructability review during design precludes value engineering during construction. The communication and collaboration that flows from partnering can help a team deal with these differences in a way that enhances project performance. Potential benefits include cost savings, schedule acceleration, construction input in design to encourage constructability, innovation, risk mitigation, and flexibility during design and construction. D-B specific partnering addresses strategies related to alignment, scope, and design quality. Partnering brings project team members together to discuss and clarify goals and responsibilities and helps build productive relationships.

8 D‐B Specific Partnering     A‐37  When to use it? D-B specific partnering is useful in instances where the agency transfers construction quality responsibilities to the contractor. To create a high level of trust, team partnering exercises can be beneficial for establishing a foundation for the working relationships between the parties. D-B specific partnering should be developed by the agency prior to selecting a contractor. Then, once the contractor is selected, the agency and contractor need to establish team partnering and goal setting procedures before construction begins. This is helpful to avoid any issues that could arise during construction that were not addressed in previous phases. Partnering meetings and partnering assessments can be used throughout design and construction. This tool is most beneficial on projects of medium to large size, and projects that are moderately complex to complex. Small, non-complex project could benefit if there is existing friction among team members before the project begins. Table A8 Recommended uses for D-B specific partnering Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n C lo se ou t N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 8 D-B specific partnering            = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Partnering is best begun early in the project development cycle. This tool is most effective when the agency develops the D-B specific partnering process before the contractor is selected. This allows the agency to require partnering as part of the Request for Proposals (RFP) or contract. To fulfill the contract, the selected contractor must fully participate in the D-B specific partnering program that the agency establishes. An initial partnering meeting may be a standalone meeting, or it may be paired with the project kickoff meeting. Larger and more complex projects may use an outside partnering facilitator familiar with the distinct aspects of D-B. Subsequent partnering meetings and partnering evaluations can be reviewed by the project team and used to improve the project delivery.

8 D‐B Specific Partnering     A‐38  Synthesis of examples Partnering for a D-B project is typically initiated with a meeting or workshop at the beginning of a project or at the beginning of significant project phases (e.g., design or construction). Participants should include all project stakeholders, including leadership from both the agency and the contractor. The initial partnering engagement should address the following aspects of the project:  Project mission;  Project staffing;  Expectations of the agency and D-B staff;  Issue resolution;  Schedule of the follow-up partnering engagements; and  Other key issues. One outcome of the initial partnering meeting should be a project team plan that summarizes the above items so that it can be referred to when needed during the course of the project. 8 Example 1 US 60 (Grand Ave.) and Bell Road Interchange Project, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) On this D-B project, ADOT held a partnering meeting at the beginning of the design phase and at the beginning of the construction phase. Monthly partnering evaluations helped reveal whether or not the team was providing timely review of design documents. The ADOT D-B Manual provides guidance on partnering, as described by the following. ROLES, PROJECT COMMUNICATION, AND THE WINNING TECHNICAL PROPOSAL … An Initial Partnering Workshop, with all key stakeholders, should commence immediately after the award of the contract. A goal of the workshop is to develop a Project Team Plan. This plan describes the roles, interactions, and responsibilities of ADOT’s and the Design-Builder’s key project Team members including the Project Manager (PM), the Resident Engineer (RE), the Design Quality Manager, technical sections, the general consultant and the Design-Builder. One of the primary goals of the document is to determine how the ADOT Team makes decisions and how it interacts with the Design-Builder’s Team. … 6.6 ISSUE RESOLUTION On a D-B project the issue resolution process is the same as for other projects. Subsections of the Standards Specifications are all applicable unless a special dispute resolution procedure has been included in the D-B Package. Please refer to the ADOT Construction Manual and the

8 D‐B Specific Partnering     A‐39  Department’s Partnering Management Section for additional information. It is advisable for the RE and PM to streamline the issue resolution process on a D-B project due to the fast track nature of the work and the expensive overhead costs of the Design-Builder. 8 Example 2 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Design-Build Manual CDOT requires partnering on all “significant” D-B projects, and their D-B Manual provides guidance on what partnering does, why it is important, and how it should be conducted. Partnering CDOT has established a best practice of having a formal, facilitated partnering meeting at the start of all significant Design-Build projects. As can be seen from the organization chart, a Design- Build team is a combination of the owner’s oversight team and the Contractor’s design and construction team. For the project to be successful, it is imperative that these two teams work together to achieve the common goal of successfully completing the project. The goal of the partnering session is to foster the development of an integrated and cohesive team, which is essential to the success of any Design-Build exercise. It is important to not overlook or marginalize this step, as a united Design-Build team that is focused on common goals for the project is much more successful than a team that relies on the traditional adversarial roles played by the owner and the Contractor. The executive management from both CDOT and the Contractor must participate to show support and solidarity with the newly formed unified Design-Build team. A well-executed partnering process enhances teamwork and helps build the relationships that are essential for an effective project team. Potential items for an initial partnering meeting include the following:  CDOT executive’s opening remarks  Contractor executive’s opening remarks  CDOT and Contractor Project Manger’s expectations  Project Charter (mission statement)  Issue resolution process (counterparts, escalation ladder, timelines)  Continued partnering evaluation, monitoring, and accountability (report cards)  Key issue discussions and initial action items. References American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO Partnering Handbook, Second edition (draft). AASHTO: Washington, D.C., 2017. Arizona Department of Transportation, Design-Build Procurement and Administration Guide, Third Edition. December 2007 [Online]. Available: https://azdot.gov/docs/default- source/construction-group/designbuildguide.pdf?sfvrsn=0, accessed February 10, 2018 Colorado Department of Transportation, Design-Build Manual, Innovative Contracting Program, September 2016 [Online]. Available:

8 D‐B Specific Partnering     A‐40  https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/innovative-contracting-and-design- build/2016-cdot-d-b-manual, accessed February 10, 2018 International Partnering Institute (IPI), Collaborative partnering best practices guide. IPI: Livermore, CA, 2017.

9 Continuity of Team Members     A‐41  9 Continuity of Team Members Key team members from the agency and the contractor must remain involved throughout the design and construction phases to enhance project understanding, consistency, and communication. What is it? D-B projects can take advantage of collaboration to seek efficient and innovative design and construction solutions. Collaboration is enhanced when trust exists, and trust is built through ongoing relationships. By keeping key team members involved during design and construction, project knowledge and communication channels are leveraged for efficient project management. Why use it? Continuity of team members can help a team avoid misunderstandings and mistakes since key team members have a strong knowledge of project background and decisions, and the intent behind those decisions. Continuity of team members creates ownership and understanding of design intent. Replacing a key member of the team during construction can lead to situations where past design decisions are re-discussed because of a lack of history and knowledge with the project. Additionally, if unexpected conditions occur in the field, the response to those decisions may not be consistent with the project intent. This can happen when new team members have not been fully immersed in the project from the design phase. Potential benefits include schedule acceleration and construction input in design to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation. Continuity of team members addresses both the alignment strategy and design quality strategy. Key team members develop relationships through the life of the project which fosters alignment. The quality of preconstruction services is enhanced when team member involvement is consistent. When to use it? The continuity of key team members should begin in planning and through project closeout. The larger and more complex a project is, the more potential benefit there is from fostering continuity in the team members.

9 Continuity of Team Members     A‐42  Table A9 Recommended uses for continuity of team members Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n C lo se ou t N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 9 Continuity of team members            = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Assign team members in planning and design that will continue their involvement with the project through construction and closeout. This is true of D-B and design staff as well as agency staff. Although many agencies include statements about retaining key personnel, these requirements can sometimes be difficult to enforce. There are times when team members cannot be assigned to a project, like when a project is delayed and personnel are reassigned to other projects. During a project, a team member might be promoted, become ill, resign, or retire. In these situations, assigning new team members is unavoidable. Every effort should be made to assign personnel with appropriate qualifications and to provide briefings for new personnel so they understand and are knowledgeable about project background. Bringing new lead construction personnel on during construction puts them at a disadvantage because they do not have history with the project and they lack an understanding of how risks have been assigned and mitigated. Without this background knowledge, they may default to treating risk like they would for a design-bid-build project, instead of the way the D-B team has agreed to approach the risk. It is important for agency personnel to have continuity on a project as well. An agency should think through the ramifications of assigning an agency staff member primarily to a designated project in order to provide team continuity. This can take an agency staff member away from other assignments and commitments that will need to be covered by others.   Synthesis of examples An agency should first consider which team members they will be dedicating to a project. The time commitment should be estimated, and other responsibilities adjusted to allow the team member to fulfill their role throughout the entire project. If an agency expects the contractor to maintain continuity of team members, this should be clearly communicated in the contract. The roles where continuity is expected should be identified and the process to replace these people should be described. The project team should plan for onboarding new team members during the

9 Continuity of Team Members     A‐43  project, whether these are subcontractors or replacements of key personnel. Onboarding should provide an overview of project scope, goals, decisions, roles and responsibilities, and project issues and challenges. 9 Example 1 US 60 (Grand Ave.) and Bell Road Interchange Project, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) This D-B project specifies in the Request for Proposals (RFP) that changing key personnel is not allowed between the submittal of qualifications and the D-B proposal, unless a formal request is submitted and approved. Changes in Proposer’s Organization or Key Personnel Proposers are advised that, in order for a Proposer to remain qualified to submit a Proposal after it has been placed on the shortlist, unless otherwise approved in writing by ADOT, Proposer’s organization and Key Personnel as identified in the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) must remain intact for the duration of the procurement process through award of the Design-Build Contract. Accordingly, following submittal of the SOQs, the following actions may not be undertaken without ADOT’s prior written consent: a) Deletion or substitution of a Proposer team member identified in its SOQ; b) Deletion or substitution of Key Personnel identified in its SOQ; Should a Proposer wish to make such a change, it shall notify ADOT and request its consent in writing and shall provide, for any new or substitute team member or personnel, the same information required under the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for such team member or personnel had it, he or she been part of the Proposer team as of the SOQ submission. If a Proposer wishes to delete a team member or change Key Personnel, the Proposer shall provide ADOT with information establishing that the Proposer remains qualified for shortlisting as contemplated under the RFQ. Any such request shall be sent via E-mail or in writing addressed to ADOT’s Authorized Representative described in this Section. For a change in Key Personnel, the request shall be accompanied with the same information as requested under RFQ for Key Personnel. If the Preferred Proposer requests any such change, or any change in any other team members or personnel identified in its Proposal, after evaluation of Proposals and before execution of the Design-Build contract, it shall submit such information as may be required by ADOT to demonstrate that the proposed deletions, substitutions and changes meet the RFP criteria and would not change the outcome of the Proposal rankings. ADOT intends to respond to requests for changes within the reasonable time period. ADOT is under no obligation to approve requests for changes in the Proposer’s organization, Key Personnel or other identified personnel, and may approve or disapprove in writing a portion of

9 Continuity of Team Members     A‐44  the request or the entire request in its sole discretion. Any such change made without the written consent of ADOT may, at ADOT’s sole discretion, result in the Proposer being disqualified. 9 Example 2 Lahaina Bypass 1B-2 Project, Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) & Federal Highway Administration – Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-CFLHD) For this project, language about retaining key personnel is included in the design-build contract. Proposers were required to identify key personnel in the response to the RFQ. Key Personnel, Subcontractors and Outside Associates or Consultants In connection with the services covered by this contract, any in-house personnel, subcontractors, and outside associates or consultants will be limited to the key individuals or firms that were specifically identified and agreed to during the RFQ submittal process. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for these designated in-house personnel, subcontractors, associates, or consultants. 9 Example 3 MD 404 – US 50 to East of Holly Road Project, Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA) For this D-B project, language about retaining key personnel is included in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Unapproved changes in key personnel is not allowed. When personnel continuity cannot be achieved, guidance on approved replacements is provided. Design Personnel Identified in Proposal The designer and design subcontractors shall utilize the key personnel identified in their Statement of Qualification (SOQ) to manage the project and supervise engineers and technicians in completing the design in a timely manner to permit construction activities. Changes in key staff identified in the SOQ must be approved in writing by the Administration, and replacement personnel must have equal or better qualifications than the key personnel identified in the proposal. The format for replacement staff resumes must be in the same format as required for the SOQ including requirements thereof. The Administration shall be the sole judge as to whether replacement staff members are acceptable. Construction Personnel Identified in Proposal The Design-Build Team, all key staff and construction-related key personnel, and all other Major Participants identified in the proposal shall be utilized in the same manner and to the same extent set forth in the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) and for the duration of the project. Changes regarding the Design-Build Team shall not be allowed. Changes regarding key staff, construction- related key personnel and all other Major Participants require prior written approval by the Administration. Requests for such changes must be submitted to the Administration in writing and

9 Continuity of Team Members     A‐45  replacement personnel must have equal or better qualifications than the key personnel identified in the SOQ. The format for replacement staff must be the same format as required for the SOQ including the requirements thereof. The Design-Build Team acknowledges that any such changes are for the convenience of the Design-Build Team alone and shall not increase the Design-Build Team’s Price or change the project schedule. The Administration will approve such requests only if it determines that such change will not detrimentally affect the long term quality, durability, maintainability, timeliness of the Work. 9 Example 4 Route 8 in Bridgeport Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) This project utilized continuity of team members, and the requirements were described in the project RFP as seen below. Summary of the Design-Build Proposal Process In its SOQ, each Proposer identifies Key Personnel that it has assigned or will assign to the Project, stating the specific role that each person would play in the Project work. Those identifications will be deemed a binding commitment that if the Proposer should receive the Contract, those identified “team members” will, in fact, play the designated roles in the Project design construction. Proposers are precluded from substituting, replacing, or removing any of the Key Personnel without written consent of the Department to do so. If a Proposer believes that a substitution for any identified Key Personnel is warranted at any time (due to an intervening event), the Proposer shall notify the Department in writing, providing details of the proposed change and the reasons for it. The Department shall not withhold such consent unreasonably. Proposed substitutions for each identified Personnel shall have equal or better credentials than the Personnel that they would be replacing. Should the substituted Personnel, in the opinion of the Department, prove to not meet or exceed the experience and training that the original team member possessed, the Evaluation Committee may reevaluate the Proposer’s Qualifications score accordingly, if the substitution is proposed before the award of the Contract. 9 Example 5 Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) The TXDOT design-build agreement template has a table for identifying key personnel and assigning liquidated damages when an agreed upon person is not place. 7.4 Key Personnel Change Liquidated Damages As deemed compensation to TxDOT for Losses described in Section 8.3.1 of the General Conditions, DB Contractor agrees to pay to TxDOT the following Key Personnel Change Liquidated Damages amounts in accordance with such section, for each day that the relevant Key Personnel role is not filled by an approved individual:

9 Continuity of Team Members     A‐46  Position Key Personnel Change Liquidated Damages (per day) Project Manager $[●] Construction Manager $[●] Design Manager $[●] Independent Quality Firm Manager $[●] Professional Services Quality Services Manager $[●] Environmental Compliance Manager $[●] Safety Manager $[●] [revise and insert others as applicable] $[●] References Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), Rehabilitation of Bridge Nos. 03761, 03762, 03764, & 03765 Route 8 in Bridgeport, October, 2014 [Online], Available: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dconstruction/designbuild/bridgeport_project_15- 363_rfp_part_1.pdf, accessed February 14, 2018. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Design-Build Agreement, Version 1, August11, 2017 [Online], Available: https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/spd/design- build/agreement-template.pdf, accessed July 23, 2018. 

10 FHWA Involvement Overview    A‐47  10 FHWA Involvement Overview A table or list that briefly describes the way a project interfaces with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on a federally funded project. This interface is often determined based on FHWA local division interest defined in Stewardship and Oversight agreements. What is it? FHWA must be involved on federally funded projects and this level of involvement may vary by project determination. Sometimes project teams have a difficult time keeping track of when to interface with FHWA. This tool provides a succinct overview of FHWA involvement on federally funded projects. This tool summarizes FHWA involvement in a federally funded project based on FHWA’s Final Rule and agency agreements with FHWA. The FHWA involvement overview lists the project activities where FHWA has involvement and specifies the role or action needed, such as consult, invite, authorize, review, approve, or concur. Why use it? A description of FHWA involvement provides an overview of all the processes and procedures in which FHWA must be included. This includes project selection, administration, procurement, design, and construction. A summary of FHWA involvement helps the agency fulfill federal requirements by involving FHWA in processes and procedures when required. Without this summary, the level of FHWA involvement and required actions can become a source of confusion. Delays may result due to revisiting decisions when FHWA involvement has been overlooked, and in some cases cause rework. Potential benefits include schedule acceleration and owner control of design. Involving FHWA at the right time helps avoid delays due to revisiting decisions when FHWA has been accidentally bypassed. Keeping track of FHWA requirements helps the agency and the federal government stay in control of design and keep momentum with decision-making. FHWA involvement overview addresses both the alignment strategy and the scope strategy. This tool clearly explains the expectations of FHWA involvement and reinforces the scope of that involvement and the responsibilities the project team has in order to keep FHWA involved. When to use it? A description of FHWA involvement should be developed at the initial project development phase and is referenced throughout the project. This tool is recommended for projects of all sizes and complexity, whenever FHWA is involved in a project.

10 FHWA Involvement Overview    A‐48  Table A10 Recommended uses for FHWA involvement overview Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n C lo se ou t N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 10 FHWA involvement overview                 = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? A description of FHWA involvement is used by the project team to appropriately inform, consult, and invite FHWA as required to attend meetings and review documents. When considering a project for federal funding, the agency should contact their local FHWA division to determine whether the project is a Project of Division Interest (PoDI) or not. This will determine the level of FHWA project involvement according to the agency’s FHWA Stewardship and Oversight Agreement. Synthesis of examples It is critical for an agency to work closely with FHWA on a federally funded project. The first step is to determine whether or not the project is a project of division interest (PoDI). While one or a few team members may be responsible for coordinating with FHWA, all team members should be made aware of the project elements that FHWA needs to have input on. Time should be allotted in the project schedule for this coordination. 10 Example 1 West 4th Street Bridge Project, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) PennDOT uses a submittal review checklist that clearly identifies the submittals that not only FHWA needs to receive, but also PennDOT’s District, Central Office, and others. This Submittal Review Responsibility Checklist was included in PennDOT’s Innovative Bidding Toolkit.

10 FHWA Involvement Overview    A‐49  APPENDIX B - Submittal Review Responsibility Checklist Plan set  District Central Office FHWA Other Roadway Design Quality Plan Pavement Design Environmental/Permits Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan NPDES Permit Draft Exploration Plan and Schedule of Borings Geotechnical Design Permanent Pavement Marking Design and Signing Pre-Final Plans Final Roadway Plans As-Built Roadway Plans Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Final TS&L Waterway Permits/Permit Amendments Foundation Submission Final Structure Plans As-Built Plans Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Final TS&L Waterway Permits/Permit Amendments Foundation Submission Final Structure Plans As-Built Plans Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Design Incident Management Plan Preliminary Plan Final Plan Transportation Management Plan Utility Coordination Utility Relocation Highway Occupancy Permits

10 FHWA Involvement Overview    A‐50  Utility Reimbursement Documentation Right-of-Way Acquisition Preliminary Right-of-Way Plan Appraisals Final Right-of-Way Plans Modified Final Right-of-Way Plans ADA Curb Ramp Design Traffic Signal Permit Plan revisions Technical Infeasability Form Curb Ramp designs References Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Innovative Contracting (Design-Build and CM/GC) 2015 [Online]. Available:https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/innovative- contracting-and-design-build, accessed July 31, 2017. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal-Aid Program Administration, 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/stewardship/, accessed August 20, 2017. FHWA Stewardship & Oversight Agreement between FHWA & MnDOT, 2017 [Online]. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/mndiv/stewardship.cfm, accessed August 20, 2017. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Innovative Bidding Toolkit, Publication 448, 2013 Edition, Change 2, Penn DOT, Bureau of Project Delivery, Highway Delivery Division Project Schedules, Specifications and Constructability Section, [Online]. Available: http://www.penndot.gov/_layouts/pa.penndot.formsandpubs/formsandpubs.aspx, accessed Sept. 17, 2017.

11 Permit Commitment Database    A‐51  11 Permit Commitment Database This is a summary of all commitments included in the permits and agreements, which helps the project team keep track of all commitments. What is it? Every project requires some kind of permit. Projects that cross multiple jurisdictions may require many permits. Permit requirements may cover a diverse number of issues that can be difficult for project teams to keep track of. This database serves as a handy reference that summarizes key information about all the permit commitments on a project. Why use it? A permit commitment database keeps the project team focused on meeting all permit requirements. This tool guards against overlooking a permit commitment made on the project. Potential benefits include cost and schedule savings, as well as facilitating the resolution of third party issues that can impact cost and schedule. Identifying the permits and their responsible parties early on may also allow for additional input to the design. A permit commitment database helps address all of the alignment, scope, and construction efficiency strategies. It helps establish clear permitting goals and responsibilities for the agency and the D-B team members. The database allows project stakeholders to begin communicating regarding permits during the early stages of the project, while establishing clear expectations so that the construction phase can later proceed smoothly. When to use it? The permit commitment database can be included with the Request for Proposals (RFP), and can state if the owner has already obtained specific permits. This can help a D-B firm during the proposal stage to better understand and plan for all permit commitments from the beginning. Permit commitments must be met throughout the duration of the project. If the D-B firm is obtaining permits, then the agency can request that the D-B firm create the permit commitment database. It is recommended to have a permit commitment database for projects of all sizes, especially moderately complex to complex projects. For projects that are not complex, the project team can consider using this tool on a case-by-case basis.

11 Permit Commitment Database    A‐52  Table A11 Recommended uses for permit commitment database Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n C lo se ou t N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 11 Permit commitment database            = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? The permit commitments database is prepared by whoever is responsible to obtain the majority of permits – either the agency or the D-B firm. The permit commitment database can be used as a checklist to make sure all commitments are made and maintained. The database provides information such as the name of the jurisdiction issuing the permit, the permit number, a description of the topic, who is responsible, and where to locate the requirements within the permit. Synthesis of Examples Good practice for this tool follows the points identified below:  The RFP summarizes the required permits, possibly as part of an appendix.  Conditions from each of the required permits are identified and summarized in a table that serves as a database throughout the project.  The table has columns for the permit number, permit ID, topic, requirements, responsibility, source reference details, and page numbers for ease of navigation.  A status column could be added to indicate when requirements are fulfilled or on track to being fulfilled.  The database is searchable based on requirements, topic, a certain party’s responsibility, permit status, etc. Permit Number  Unique ID #  Topic  Requirement  Responsibility  Source Reference Heading  Source Reference Page Status Check- in Date   1              2              3              …           

11 Permit Commitment Database    A‐53  11 Example 1 I-405, NE 6th Street to I-5 (Bellevue to Lynnwood) Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) This project crossed a number of jurisdictions and required permits from multiple agencies. The RFP summarized these permits in an appendix. Conditions from each of these permits were identified and summarized in a table that served as a database throughout the project. The table has a column for the permit, topic, requirements, responsibility, and source reference details. This database can be searched for all requirements from one type of permit. Alternatively, it can be searched for all requirements that are the responsibility of a certain party. I-405, NE 6th to I-5 Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project Commitments List Permit Number Uniqu e ID # Topic Requirement Responsibility Source Reference Details Heading Page ESA- National Marine Fisheries -1 1 Stormwater Facilities; Stormwater The Design-Builder shall reconfigure and/or enlarge existing facilities so as to provide flow control to address the estimated 19.2 acres of impervious surface that falls within the basins that are outside the flow control exempt Sammamish River Basin, which is exempt from flow control (WSDOT 2006). This target flow control catchment area includes the Project's new impervious surface as well as restoration of any flow control facilities that are in place prior to the project. Flow control will be provided by infiltration ponds, detention ponds, detention vaults, and combined stormwater treatment wetlands/detention ponds according to WSDOT guidelines. Up to 17 flow control facilities will be needed for the project. Several of these are existing facilities are being increased in size to accommodate the current project. See RFP Appendix H1 for a detailed breakdown and additional hydraulic information. Design-Builder Treating Storm Water 3 ESA- National Marine Fisheries - 2 2 Stormwater Facilities; Stormwater The Design-Builder shall provide stormwater runoff treatment for 13.89 acres of new impervious surface and will complete a stormwater retrofit for an additional 4.69 acres of existing impervious surface (out of the approximately 323 acres of existing impervious surface). Stormwater in the area currently discharges to the Sammamish River, North Creek, Juanita Creek, Forbes Creek, Yanow Creek, and local tributaries within the North Bellevue basin. See RFP Appendix H1 for a Design-Builder Treating Storm Water 2

11 Permit Commitment Database    A‐54  Permit Number Uniqu e ID # Topic Requirement Responsibility Source Reference Details Heading Page detailed breakdown and additional hydraulic information. ESA- National Marine Fisheries-3 3 Work In the Sammamish River The Design-Builder shall place up to a total of 450 square feet of riprap will be installed below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) for the two new stormwater outfalls to the Sammamish River. The outfalls are above OHWM of the Sammamish River, but the riprap will be placed below the outfall to protect against streambank erosion. In-water work on the Sammamish River will also include installing Large Woody Debris (LWD) and round rock within the river. In addition to the riprap installation, Best Management Practices (BMP) installation will temporarily impact up to a total of 400 square feet. Installation of LWD and round rock will occur within the same 450 square feet as the riprap. Bank stabilization methods will incorporate recommendations from the Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (WSDOT 2007). Design-Builder Work in the Sammamis h River 4 References Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). I-405/NE 6th Street to I-5 Widening and Express Toll Lane Project, Request for Proposal, July 25, 2011, Appendix A [Online]. Available: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/ProjectContracts/DESIGNBUILDCONTRACTS/NE% 206TH%20ST%20TO%20I-5/Default.htm, accessed Dec. 16, 2017.

12 Plan Standards    A‐55  12 Plan Standards These are plan standards that are adapted to the goal of developing plans and specification for building a project, rather than for bidding a project. What is it? Instead of preparing plans for bidding by multiple contractors who have not participated in the design phase, designers prepare plans to be used by the D-B entity who has been participating in the design phase. Thus, when there is a strategic reason, plans can deviate from standard formatting and still communicate the needed information to the contractor without creating ambiguity. The owner still needs a complete set of as-built drawings, so plans should be prepared for the purposes of building the project and for documenting as-built conditions. Adjustments to plan standard addresses the alignment strategy and design quality strategy. Agreeing on adjusted plan standards helps bring the team into alignment on what the design deliverable will look like, based on what the contractor will need to build the project. Ensuring the plans contain the information needed by the contractor to build the project requires active participation of the contractor during design, thus promoting design quality. Why use it? Implementing D-B specific plan standards can expedite the design phase. This is possible because the contractor is participating in the design phase, and has in-depth project background to draw from when interpreting and using the plans. Potential benefits attributed to this flexibility during design plan development are primarily cost savings and schedule acceleration from a more streamlined plan development. When to use it? This occurs during the design phase. It is recommended for complex projects of mid to large size. It may be used in other projects, but the scale of the project reduces the impact of the benefit for the project team. On smaller projects that will not last a long time, the agency may feel it is easier to stick with the typical plan standards than try to adjust to a revised plan standard for such a short project.

12 Plan Standards    A‐56  Table A12 Recommended uses for plan standards Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 12 Plan standards         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? As design plans are being developed, the project team discusses the best way to convey information for construction and the requirements for as-built drawings. If the most efficient way deviates from the standard formatting, the project team seeks approval from the agency to deviate. The agency should think ahead to what information they want on the as-built plans. Some details for construction may be able to be communicated through tables of data apart from the plans, such as the survey data or materials specifications found on summary sheets, but if this information is needed by the agency on the as-built plans, this information should be incorporated into the project plans. A common example of a plan standard deviation relates to removals. If a utility like a communications cable must be removed through the length of the project, the removal information can be placed on one plan sheet rather than every plan sheet. Alternatively, roll plots can be used instead of plan sheets. It may be convenient for a contractor to have a roll plot of pavement and utility removals rather than a large number of individual plan sheets. The plan sheets are convenient for bidding, but the roll plot is convenient for construction. Since the work is not being bid, the roll plot may be all that is needed. Typically, removals are not needed on as-built drawings, so the agency is not sacrificing any information for record keeping. Synthesis of examples Adaptation of plan standards should be used to meet function, quality, safety, and any other standards the agency needs to maintain. This tool should not be used as a short-cut around needed standards. The appropriate application is when a general standard does not readily apply to a particular situation. Removals are a good example of this. Another example is when an agency’s standard details jump over what is needed. For example, if a four-foot high reinforced box culvert

12 Plan Standards    A‐57  is needed and the agency only has details for three-foot and five-foot, it may be appropriate to use a detail from a different agency for a four-foot high box. 12 Example 1 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation Manual Volume 1: Design Criteria and Process FDOT uses this Plans and Preparation Manual to describe the design criteria requirements as well as procedures for contract plans for all roadway and structure projects. The required procedure and how to identify when non-conventional projects deviate from this procedure is described below. Key to the success of this procedure is to clearly communicating to project team members when deviations to standards are occurring. PROCEDURE: The criteria in this manual represents requirements for the State Highway System which must be met for the design of FDOT project unless approved Design Exceptions or Design Variations are obtained in accordance with procedures outlined in this manual. Roadway and structures design is primarily a matter of sound application of acceptable engineering criteria and standards. While the criteria contained in this manual provides a basis for uniform design practice for typical roadway design situations, precise standards which would apply to individual situations must rely on good engineering practice and analyses. Special requirements for Non-Conventional Projects, e.g., Design-Build Projects and all Non- Design-Bid-Build, Public Private Partnership Projects, may be shown in a “Modification for Non- Conventional Projects” box as shown in the following example: Modification for Non-Conventional Projects: Delete PPM 7.2.6 and replace with the following: 7.2.6 Signing Project Coordination The Design-Build firm must submit a master signing plan with the Technical Proposal. The master signing plan can be on a roll plot. These boxes are located at the beginning of the chapter or after a section, paragraph or table which is to be modified. The requirements listed within these boxes are only applicable to Non- Conventional Projects. References Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Plans and Preparation Manual Volume 1: Design Criteria and Process, Jan. 2017 [Online] Available: http://www.fdot.gov/roadway/ppmmanual/2017/Volume1/2017Volume1.pdf, accessed February 11, 2018.

13 Deviations from Agency Standards    A‐58  13 Deviations from Agency Standards The agency allows deviations from standards on a specific project when it makes sense in the context of that project. What is it? Instead of automatically following all standards, the project team evaluates project goals and project context and when appropriate, suggests deviations from standards in order to better meet the agencies goals. This does not apply to safety standards. Why use it? Standards are meant to apply to a wide variety of circumstances. The circumstances of a particular project may not be similar to the circumstances for which the standard was created. A deviation from agency standards can help design decisions better target project needs in a more efficient manner. Since each project has a unique set of goals and circumstances, some agency standards should be adjusted to accommodate a specific project. This removes any unnecessary barriers that could potentially prevent project goals from being reached. Potential benefits include cost savings and schedule acceleration by eliminating the effort of complying with standards that do not apply. This flexibility of selecting appropriate standards also encourages contractor input during design, enhancing constructability, innovation, value engineering, and risk mitigation. The agency maintains the control over design by determining what deviations from standards will be allowed. Deviations from agency standards addresses both the alignment strategy and the design quality strategy. Clearly identifying what standards are to be met and what standards are to be modified helps create alignment among the project team. Active participation from the designer, contractor, and agency in determining what deviations from agency standards is part of design quality. When to use it? This tool is used during design when design decisions are being made by the project team. The decision to accept a deviation from agency standards is made during the design phase, however those decisions are implemented during the construction phase of the project. This tool is recommended for mid to large projects that are moderate to complex. It is not recommended for smaller, non-complex projects, as it may not produce a big enough benefit to justify the time and expense of analyzing potential deviations from the standards.

13 Deviations from Agency Standards    A‐59  Table A13 Recommended uses for deviations from agency standards Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 13 Deviations from agency standards         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? As the design team becomes thoroughly immersed in the project details, they can look for general standards that may not be meeting project goals efficiently. Then, the project team brainstorms alternatives to the standard, and a cost-benefit analysis can be done on the alternatives. A top alternative is then selected and presented to the agency as an alternate to the design standard. The agency has the authority to accept or reject the deviation from the agency standard. For example, a culvert crossing may require a certain cross section for which the agency does not have a standard design. If another state has a standard for that cross section, the agency can adopt that standard. Both standards are approved by a structural engineering, but the deviation allows the sizing to better fit the need. Agencies might have regulations prohibiting work noise during certain hours, or a requirement to keep a certain number of lanes of traffic open. An agency may consider a deviation from these regulations for a limited amount of time if there is a justifiable benefit to the project and the public. In general, an agency will want to avoid accepting a deviation from agency standards that reduces scope or reduces function. For example, substituting a shorter life pavement for the standard with a longer life would not be a benefit to the life cycle cost of the facility. Synthesis of examples This tool should not be used to avoid meeting functional, quality, safety or other agency standards. Allowing deviation from a standard can be used to help manage risk but should not compromise the final constructed product. For example, an agency may typically place some risk as a responsibility of the contractor. Allowing a deviation and sharing and qualifying the risk can help reduce the cost of the work by reducing the contractor’s contingency for the work. Any deviations

13 Deviations from Agency Standards    A‐60  under consideration should be carefully thought through and documented if agreed upon. Deviations should bring a benefit to the agency and not just be a convenience for the contruction. 13 Example 1 Winona Bridge Project, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Although this project is a CM/GC project, it illustrates how the context of a project can be taken into account to meet the agency’s objectives without sacrificing quality or safety. This project rehabilitated an historic bridge across the Mississippi River. The standards called for cofferdams to be at the 10-year flood elevation. Instead, the project team built the cofferdams to one foot above the 5-year flood elevation. By accepting this risk, the project saved $240,000 as summarized in the project case study below. MISSISSIPPI RIVER SPRING FLOODING One of the main project goals is to place Trunk Highway 43 traffic on new Bridge 85851 by the fall of 2016. In order to accomplish this, the project team needed to devise a plan to mitigate the potential risk of Mississippi River flooding in the spring of 2015, which could cause a significant delay and potentially unrecoverable schedule delay to the project. With recent river flooding in the spring and summer of 2014, this was a major concern for the project team. The primary countermeasure to address this risk was an aggressive construction schedule for the new bridge river piers, to build them up out of harm’s way before the spring 2015 flood season. The team worked proactively toward this common goal. Several cost mitigation techniques were also deployed once the schedule details were worked out:  The cofferdam elevations were set at a 5-year flood elevation, plus one foot, in lieu of a 10- year event level. Resulting in the project savings of $240,000  A unique, shared risk Marine Idle Equipment contract provision was deployed to pay the contractor for any idle marine equipment should flooding in 2015 impact the critical path of the construction schedule. This could save up to an additional $250,000 if the project stays on schedule and experiences no flooding delays in the spring. When combined, these savings could lead to an overall cost savings of $490,000 for the project. References Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Benefits of the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) Delivery Method, 2015 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/winonabridge/docs/casestudies/casestudy8.pdf, accessed Dec. 21, 2017.

14 Discipline Task Force    A‐61  14 Discipline Task Force A discipline task force is a group of individuals focused on one specific discipline. Discipline task forces are formed to ensure coordination across project disciplines. What is it? Each discipline task force focuses on a specific discipline of work such as structures, roadway, drainage, or environmental. Members of a task force include designers, key construction personnel, and the agency’s discipline experts. Task forces generally meet weekly to discuss discipline related design progress and issues, and to plan phased action items as necessary. The meeting minutes from each task force meeting are recorded and distributed. Why use it? This tool ensures that attention is given to every aspect of the project. Furthermore, implementing regular discipline specific meetings ensures that any necessary action is taken in a timely manner. The primary purpose of a discipline task force is to provide consistency and improve coordination across all project disciplines. Additionally, regular meetings on specific topics aid in the management and communication between all parties, enhancement of project quality, and keeping the project on schedule. Potential benefits include allowing for agency and construction input to design to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation, the ability to fast track through phasing the project as needed, and the ability to bid early work packages if desired. Discipline task forces address both the scope strategy and the design quality strategy. These task forces establish clear scopes within each project discipline. They also ensure quality of design by allowing for the agency’s active participation in design reviews and for the D-B firm to verify competitive pricing of estimates for each discipline’s design. When to use it? It is feasible for discipline task forces to hold meetings during any phase of a project, but they are most common during design. Additionally, there is potential for new task forces to form throughout the project as the need arises. It is recommended to have discipline task forces for complex projects that are higher than $10 million in value. For smaller projects that are moderately complex, the project team can consider using this tool on a case-by-case basis. Discipline task forces are not recommended for non- complex projects because the benefits will probably be small and not justify the cost and effort.

14 Discipline Task Force    A‐62  Table A14 Recommended uses for discipline task force Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 14 Discipline task force         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? A discipline task force is composed of individuals representing each necessary party on a project. Task force members must be available to meet regularly to discuss their discipline and responsibilities in relation to the project. These individuals need to have the knowledge and authority to be able to address issues relating to their discipline. Task force members should be involved in more than one discipline task force in order to ensure consistent cross discipline coordination. Each discipline task force should have clear ground rules, scope, and deliverables; otherwise, there is a danger of getting out of alignment with the project goals. Synthesis of examples When an agency wants to be involved in the development and review of a specific discipline that is particularly relevant or unusual on a project, the requirement of a discipline task force can be included in the RFP. When task force meetings are held or communications for the task force are circulated, all task force members need to be engaged in order to keep project progress on that discipline moving forward. If agency personnel assigned to a task force do not attend task force meetings or respond to task force communications, the project will lose the benefit of this tool. Since disciplines may overlap, there may be times when one discipline task force meets with members of another task force. 14 Example 1 I-405, NE 6th Street to I-5 Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) WSDOT has experienced success with discipline task force meetings in the past. The Request for Proposals (RFP) document for this project required task force meetings for some disciplines,

14 Discipline Task Force    A‐63  encouraged them for others, and discussed the potential benefits. Excerpts from WSDOT follow below. Task Force Meetings The Design-Builder is encouraged to maintain close communication with WSDOT throughout the design and construction of the Project. It is anticipated that this close communication will expedite Project reviews; facilitate the incorporation of innovative project solutions; and facilitate Final Acceptance of the Project. On previous projects, WSDOT has found task force meetings between the Design-Builder and WSDOT to be an effective method of communication. Task force meetings are particularly effective when they are established for each design discipline; when they commence prior to starting design; and when they continue at regular intervals throughout the design. Task force meetings are required for specific disciplines as noted in these Technical Requirements. Should the Design- Builder choose to hold task force meetings for other disciplines, WSDOT will be available on a weekly basis to attend them. 14 Example 2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Design-Build Demonstration Program Quality Manual Outline Caltrans uses the following description of a task force in their Design-Build Demonstration Program Quality Manual Outline. Design Documents Preparation The design team prepares the design documents, using the established design criteria for the project and appropriate inter-discipline and Task Force coordination (via regular scheduled meetings, written communications, etc.). Task Forces (which include representatives from the Design-Builder, Department, and local agencies representatives as needed) meet weekly or bi- weekly during the design phase and periodically thereafter. Some tasks forces may be added, combined, or eliminated as design progresses. The Task Force will generally be discipline specific. References California Department of Transportation, Design-Build Demonstration Program Quality Manual Outline, July 2013 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/idd/db/sac50-5/rfp/03- 2F21U4-Exhibit-2A-Quality-Manual-Template.pdf, accessed Feb. 12, 2017. Lane, Leigh Blackmon, NCHRP Synthesis 373: Multi-Disciplinary Teams in Context-Sensitive Solutions: A Synthesis of Highway Practice, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 2007.

15 Independent Party Design Review     A‐64  15 Independent Party Design Review This is a design review that is performed by a third-party consultant that the agency hires. What is it? An independent party design review is a process where the agency hires a third-party firm to provide quality inspections and verification reviews during design. The independent review team should be a qualified consultant that can provide objective design reviews that are not biased by the contractual relationship that exists between the project’s D-B firm and the agency. It is one way to provide additional resources for an agency. Why use it? There are instances when an agency may not have the necessary resources or expertise to provide complete and thorough design reviews, especially in D-B projects where the agency does not perform the design in-house. In these cases, it can be beneficial for the project to hire a third-party independent review consultant to perform design reviews on behalf of the agency. This will place the design review responsibilities on the hired independent party, but the agency still controls how the reviews occur. This tool supplements the resources and time that an agency needs to allocate to a project. Since the independent party performs the design reviews, the agency can reduce the staff and time dedicated to reviews. Also, the selected review consultant can be required to possess additional expertise to perform a more in-depth review than a typical agency reviewer could provide. By having a highly qualified independent reviewer perform reviews of complex and specialty projects, the risk related to technical requirements can be reduced. Potential benefits include maintaining the agency’s control of the design, while also reducing agency staff time devoted to reviews. This tool could also lead to cost benefits if technical requirement risks are reduced due to the expert reviews. Finally, this tool can provide schedule benefits in instances when the agency lacks the resources and time needed to meet specific design milestones. An independent party design review addresses the scope strategy. This tool ensures the design meets the project scope and quality defined by the agency. It also helps ensure the design is up to the agency’s standards before the D-B firm starts expending significant effort working on preconstruction services including cost estimating, constructability analyses of the design, and so on. When to use it? Third-party independent reviews are most helpful on specialty projects, where the agency lacks the expertise needed to perform a detailed review, or instances where the agency lacks the necessary resources and time to meet specific design milestones (Capers et al 2011).

15 Independent Party Design Review     A‐65  It is recommended to have an independent party design review for moderately complex and complex projects that are higher than $10 million in value. An independent party design review is not recommended for smaller projects and non-complex projects because the benefits will probably not justify the cost. Table A15 Recommended uses for an independent party design review Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 15 Independent party design review         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Before design begins, the agency needs to decide if design reviews can be performed internally. This decision is based on the availability and the expertise of agency staff. When a third-party independent review team is needed, they conduct the reviews based on the process and requirements developed by the agency. This includes reviewing all required quality aspects developed by the agency prior to starting design. In addition, the independent review team will provide reviews at all specified intervals agreed to by the agency and the design team. Synthesis of examples When an agency brings in an independent party design reviewer, they should be sure to include the reviewer in partnering meetings, and relevant project meetings and the appropriate discipline specific task forces. The agency should clarify with the D-B entity whether document distribution to the reviewer will be the responsibility of the agency or the D-B entity. When the agency receives an independent party design review, they should read and assess the review to make sure they are

15 Independent Party Design Review     A‐66  in agreement with the independent reviewer’s comments and that those comments are consistent with other comments prepared by others in the agency. 15 Example 1 SH 82 Grand Avenue Bridge Project, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) CDOT replaced a traffic bridge and a pedestrian bridge in this large complex and phased project located in an urban Colorado area. CDOT contracted with consultants to perform independent party design reviews to supplement the work of agency staff. Although this project did not have federal funding, CDOT also asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to perform an independent review in order to benefit from their expertise. References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO Guide to Quality in Preconstruction Engineering, Washington, D.C., 2003. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO Consultant Contracting Guide, Washington, D.C., 2008. Capers, Harry, Hossein Ghara, Kelley C. Rehm, Nancy Boyd, Tim Swanson, Carmen Swanwick, Robert J. Healy, Richard W. Dunne, and Robert S. Watral, NCHRP Project 20-68A: Best Practices in Quality Control and Assurance in Design, Scan 09-01, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., Aug. 2011 [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/nchrp20-68a_07-01.pdf, accessed April 13, 2018. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Guidance on QC/QA in Bridge Design in Response to NTSB Recommendation (H-08-17), USDOT, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011 [Online]. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/h0817.pdf, accessed April 14, 2018.

16 Cost Savings Matrix     A‐67  16 Cost Savings Matrix A table listing the innovations or cost saving measures developed by the project team to enhance the project in a variety of ways such as cost and schedule. What is it? A cost savings matrix is a table for tracking innovative ideas, their impact on the project, who is responsible, and the status of the innovation. Innovative ideas may be novel approaches, or simply efficient ways to reach project goals. Impacts to the project may be cost savings, time savings, improved safety, quality, access, etc. A responsible party for follow-up is designated to research the innovation and its impacts. The information about the innovation is reviewed by the team so a decision can be made whether or not to accept and implement the innovation. Why use it? The cost savings matrix is a tool that reminds teams to think innovatively. The cost savings matrix provides a single place to document innovative ideas that are under consideration and provides structure for investigating innovative ideas and tracking the status of the each idea as it is explored. The cost savings matrix provides a document that the agency can use to assess whether the D-B delivery method brought innovation to the project, and what benefits accrued to the project. Innovations can be lessons learned for an agency, so the cost savings matrix also provides documentation for lessons learned that can be applied to future projects. The potential benefits of a cost savings matrix include cost savings, schedule acceleration, and construction input in design to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation. The cost savings matrix addresses the alignment strategy, scope strategy and design quality strategy. Goals can be clarified and productive relationships built as a team explores innovations together. As options are analyzed, scope is constantly referred to. Identifying and researching innovative opportunities keeps the contractor engaged throughout the design phase. When to use it? The cost savings matrix is used during the design phase. Since the contractor is involved during the design phase and sharing preconstruction input, most innovation will be raised during design.

16 Cost Savings Matrix     A‐68  Table A16 Recommended uses for cost savings matrix Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 16 Cost savings matrix         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? The cost savings matrix can be created in a spreadsheet. The cost savings matrix is a topic of discussion that can be placed on the agenda for project meetings. All team members must be open to innovation for this tool to be accepted and used effectively by the team. Synthesis of examples The primary purpose of a cost savings matrix is to document the innovation, its estimated cost, schedule, or other benefits. In a D-B project, most of the innovation will be presented to the agency in the confidential one-on-one alternative technical concept meetings and in the D-B team proposals. When an agency provides a stipend for the D-B teams who are not selected, this give the agency the right to use the innovations those teams proposed with. It is up to ht eD-B and the agency to determine if any of those ideas are worth incorporating into the winning D-B team’s proposal. Discussion regarding innovation can occur any time during a project, but most often during design. If an innovation is recommended, the matrix can also document the plan to implement it on a project. Agencies usually develop a standard table to document this information to help facilitate

16 Cost Savings Matrix     A‐69  the decision about whether to implement the innovation or not. While the format of an innovation matrix can vary, the typical information on the matrix include the following:  Description of the innovation  Identification of which area of the project would be impacted (e.g. phase and work type)  Estimated cost savings  Estimated schedule savings  Estimated other types of benefits (e.g. reduction in risk)  Costs or changes in other areas if the innovation were implemented  Recommendation  Action items and responsible parties (if the innovation is recommended to be implemented) 16 Example 1 I-95/I-295 Interchange, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) This D-B project modernizes and improves the existing interchange. FDOT uses a cost savings initiative process that provides a forum for the D-B team to present the agency with innovations not already presented in the alternative technical concepts or proposal. This meeting occurs after the NTP but before design continues. 16 Example 2 I-70 Vail Underpass Project, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Although this project is a CM/GC, the table template for a cost savings matrix could be useful to a D-B team that is exploring additional innovations and cost savings. A few examples from an innovation matrix can be seen below that demonstrates how it can be used.

16 Cost Savings Matrix     A‐70  Innovation Identification Value Added Action Items V E N o. V E N am e D at e In iti at ed D es cr ip tio n Estimate d Cost Savings Schedule Savings (Shifts) Additional Value Added C ur re nt S ta tu s Action Required By Action Required D at e R eq ui re d Final Decision Fi na l D ec isi on D at e Ph as in g Utilize head to head traffic to maintain 100% mobility $833,000 TBD (2 months anticipated) Minimize risk associated with utility relocation by providing flexibility Co m pl et e Contractor Estimate Detour paving requirements and cost 12 /9 /2 01 4 Phasing with one way traffic developed and accepted by project team and stakeholders 12 /1 9/ 20 14 Designer Determine availability of North Frontage Road detour on Lion Ridge Loop Re fin e Ph as in g Ongoing refinement to minimize detour lengths and maintain efficiencie s in constructio n TBD 0 over previous phasing Smaller impacts to adjacent CDOT Right of Way and other properties U nd er R ev ie w Designer Design team updating and to be included in Final Office Review plan set FO R  Pl an s  ---- --- -- Ra ise I- 70 P ro fil e Raise I-70 Profile $300,000 Undetermine d but less excavation would reduce duration Additional value potential in less impacts to utilities and smoother drainage issues N ot In co rp or at ed Contractor Provide Estimate for replacement of I-70 9/ 30 /2 01 4  Determined not to incorporate due to stakeholder feedback and additional design and environmental clearance impacts 11 /3 /2 01 4 Designer Determine adjustments to S. Frontage Rd Alignment (savings in excavation quantity) 9/ 30 /2 01 4 

17 In‐Progress Design Workshops     A‐71  17 In-Progress Design Workshops These are meetings between the designer, the contractor, and the agency that take place throughout the design process to discuss and verify design progress. What is it? Throughout the design phase, the state transportation agency or the contractor is able to request a meeting with the designer in order to discuss the progress of the design. These in-progress design workshops are intended to assist the designer in resolving design issues and questions. Why use it? In-progress design workshops ensure that the project team has a consistent understanding of the project assumptions and expectations. This tool allows issues to be resolved early in the project, before they carry through the design process. Furthermore, the workshops provide an opportunity to enhance the quality of the project and enable the agency to review design information. In-progress design workshops provide a forum for the relevant project parties to review and discuss design details. This tool establishes communication between project parties at a time when decisions have a large impact on the quality of a project. All parties involved in the project are able to align their understanding of the project and assign future corrective actions if needed. The potential benefits of a cost savings matrix include cost savings, schedule acceleration, and construction input in design to encourage constructability, innovation, and risk mitigation. The agencies will also gain a shared sense of control over the design. In-progress design workshops address the alignment strategy, scope strategy and design quality strategy. The team will work jointly on achieving design goals in real time. Agencies can provide feedback if the scope starts to stray or key scope items are not being met. Overall design quality will benefit from the collaborative approach. When to use it? This tool is implemented at any stage during the design phase of a project. It is best suited to projects delivered using alternative project delivery methods in which the designer and the contractor are contractually obligated to coordinate with one another.

17 In‐Progress Design Workshops     A‐72  Table A17 Recommended uses for in-progress design workshops Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 17 In-progress design workshop        How to use it? The agency or the contractor requests an in-progress design workshop well in advance of the desired workshop date. This enables the contractor and/or the designer to submit drawings or other documents for review during the workshop. The agency may choose to limit the number of in- progress design workshops held per week due to resource constraints. The agency should keep a written record of details, such as: workshop participants, items covered, discrepancies and comments, planned corrective actions, and identified follow up actions. Synthesis of examples Ideally, this tool would be specified in the contract with details on who can call the meeting, the minimum lead time required, and who documents the meeting outcomes. Whether or not this tool is specified in the contract, it can be discussed at a partnering meeting. In-progress design workshop meetings are most successful when: there is a continuity of team members (e.g., 10), team members prepare for the workshop by reviewing documents, team members are actively engaged in the workshop, and team members who are knowledgeable in the disciplines being discussed are present and are able to make decisions for the project. 17 Example 1 I-15/I-215 (Devore) Interchange Improvements Project, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) In-progress design workshops were utilized throughout this project, their description and requirements were outlined in the Project Requirements Book 2, as seen below. In-Progress Design Workshops

17 In‐Progress Design Workshops     A‐73  Throughout the design process, the Design-Builder or the Department may request (with at least five Working Days notice) in-progress design workshops to discuss and verify design progress and to assist the Design-Builder and/or its designer(s) in resolving design questions and issues. At least five Working Days prior to each in-progress workshop, the Design-Builder shall assemble and submit drawings or other documents to be reviewed during the workshop to the Department for its information and review. The Design-Builder shall maintain a written record of all in-progress design workshops, including:  A list of the participants in attendance, date, time, and location,  Description of the items covered and discussed,  Identification of discrepancies and comments, and a report on corrective actions (both those taken and those planned),  Identification of follow-up action items, due dates, the party responsible for action items requiring resolution, and deadlines for resolution.

18 Over‐the‐Shoulder Reviews    A‐74  18 Over-The-Shoulder Reviews Over-the-shoulder review meetings bring the designer and the agency together to look at and discuss design documents while these designs are progressing. What is it? Over-the-shoulder reviews are informal design reviews where designers and agency representatives talk about design assumptions, project constraints, and alternative design solutions prior to formal design submittals. These meetings are an opportunity for the agency to provide input to the designer before design decisions are documented in a formal submittal (Gransberg et al., 2008). These types of design reviews mainly assess whether the designer is properly meeting the design requirements and design criteria of the contract. In addition, these reviews can address if the design quality management plan activities are occurring in accordance with the agency approved, contractor developed, quality management plan as well as overall project quality requirements (Gransberg et al., 2008). Why use it? An agency can use over-the-shoulder reviews to provide feedback to the designer sooner than a formal submittal, thus avoiding incomplete design work or redesign. Designers can receive agency feedback where it is desired and helpful (Gransberg et al 2008). Design does not need to stop for an over-the-shoulder review in the same way it would for a formal submittal and review. An over- the-shoulder review provides review input and opportunities to resolve confusion and conflicts without pausing the design progress. Additionally, over-the-shoulder reviews can help to increase the contractor’s adherence to required criteria, increase the quality of the design, and in turn, increase the quality of the constructed project. Potential benefits include schedule acceleration and owner control of design. Over-the-shoulder reviews allow the agency to stay involved in the design process and it can prevent designers from pursuing alternatives that will not meet the agency’s needs. Over-the-shoulder reviews address both the alignment strategy, scope strategy, and the design quality strategy. Alignment is refined as the project team discusses the project during over-the-shoulder reviews. The reviews encourage active participation of the contractor during design and bringing the agency, designer, and contractor together to look at and discuss the plans, the design quality is enhanced. When to use it? This tool can be used throughout the design phase. Over-the-shoulder design reviews can be prioritized on design aspects that are on the critical path (Gransberg et al., 2008). Over-the- shoulder meetings are helpful in checking specific design criteria. Projects with strict or difficult

18 Over‐the‐Shoulder Reviews    A‐75  performance and design criteria can benefit from the communication that occurs in an over-the- shoulder meeting. Some agencies conduct regularly scheduled over-the-shoulder reviews. Over-the-shoulder reviews are recommended for projects of any size and when projects are moderately complex to complex. Table A18 Recommended uses for over-the-shoulder reviews Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 18 Over-the-shoulder reviews         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? The use of over-the-shoulder reviews should be stated in the request for proposals (RFP) along with guidelines on how to initiate, structure, and document an over-the-shoulder meeting. Over- the-shoulder meetings should be collaborative for optimal benefit. The agency can initiate over- the-shoulder meetings at any time or they can be part of the project schedule. Over-the-shoulder meetings can be group meetings or one-on-one conversations. The designer should implement the feedback but generally it is not required to provide written documentation of the feedback. Synthesis of examples The expectation to implement over-the-shoulder reviews should be made in the RFP and in the contract. Project teams can hold regularly scheduled over-the-shoulder reviews, or call special meetings when a design issue arises. In general, over-the-shoulder reviews should not wait until a design milestone submittal. Over-the-shoulder reviews can help facilitate communication between discipline reviewers in the agency and the design team. Over-the-shoulder reviews will help the agency expedite the review of milestone submittals. The use of over-the-shoulder reviews can enhance partnering. The over-the-shoulder reviews are not Hold Points that restrict progress of

18 Over‐the‐Shoulder Reviews    A‐76  design. They are reviews of the design as it progresses, and opportunities for the agency to provide comments and feedback on the design. 18 Example 1 I-15/I-215 (Devore) Interchange Improvements Project, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) The Devore Interchange was a complex D-B project. To facilitate communication, project schedule, and project quality, Caltrans offered to meet with the designer to review the design in progress before formal submittal. The process of over-the-shoulder reviews was described in the Project Requirements Book 2, as seen below. Over-the-Shoulder Reviews Over-the-shoulder reviews are informal examinations by the Department of design documents during the Project design process. Over-the-shoulder reviews will mainly assess whether the requirements and design criteria of the Contract documents are being followed and whether the Design-Builder’s Design Quality Management plan activities are being undertaken in accordance with the approved Quality Manual. Each design package may have multiple over-the-shoulder reviews at the request of either the Department or the Design-Builder. The reviews may, at the Department’s discretion, include review of design drawings, electronic files, calculations, reports, specifications, geotechnical data, progress prints, computer images, draft documents, draft specifications and reports, other design documents, and any other relevant design information as requested by the Department. It is the intent of these reviews to check for concept, level of detail, design criteria, and fatal flaws. Comments made by the oversight team will be considered non-binding. It is the Design-Builder’s responsibility to conform to the Contract requirements. These reviews will not routinely include detailed calculation or drawing reviews, although the Department retains the right to perform detailed reviews of any item at any time. If mutually agreed upon between parties, for specific review items, the over-the-shoulder review may consist of an exchange of electronic files between the Design-Builder’s designer and the Department. The Design-Build shall permit over-the-shoulder reviews by the Department during the course of the development of each design package, prior to issuance of Released for Construction Documents. The over-the-shoulder reviews are not critical activity points that restrict the progress of design. They are simply reviews of the design as it progresses and opportunities for the Department to provide comments and feedback on the design. The Quality Manager shall define the Plan, and format of the over-the-shoulder reviews as mutually agreed.

18 Over‐the‐Shoulder Reviews    A‐77  18 Example 2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Design-Build Demonstration Program Quality Manual Outline Caltrans also provides the following definition and description of over-the-shoulder reviews within their Design-Build Demonstration Program Quality Manual Outline, as seen below. Over the Shoulder (OTS) Reviews Informal meetings between the Design-Builder and Department Design staff during the development of a Design package intended to generate discussion and provide conceptual-level feedback. No minutes of these meetings are kept and any Design-Builder actions based on these meetings are at the Design-Builder’s own risk. However, the effort put forth by the Design-Builder towards these OTS reviews should help streamline Department Design reviews. 7A.3.8.1 Over-the-Shoulder Reviews Over-the-Shoulder reviews are generally cursory reviews and are intended to minimize disruption to ongoing design work while providing timely comments and feedback on the design. Over-the-Shoulder reviews by Department representatives (and other approved project stakeholders, as appropriate) will occur through attendance at the Task Force Meetings, through attendance at the Comment Resolution Meetings that occur at the conclusion of formal reviews, and through routine day-to-day interaction. Feedback from the reviews is documented in the meeting minutes, as appropriate. References California Department of Transportation, Design-Build Demonstration Program Quality Manual Outline, July 2013 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/idd/db/sac50-5/rfp/03- 2F21U4-Exhibit-2A-Quality-Manual-Template.pdf, accessed Feb. 12, 2017. Gransberg, D. D., J. Datin, and K. Molenaar, NCHRP Synthesis 376: Quality Assurance in Design-Build Projects, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 2008, pp. 130.

19 Scope Validation Period     A‐78  19 Scope Validation Period A pre-determined period where the contractor can review all existing contract documents to identify any defects, errors, or inconsistencies. What is it? A scope validation period is an allotted amount of time for the contractor to thoroughly review all contract documents in order to identify anything that will affect their ability to design and construct the proposed design concept within the contract price and contract time. This review should take place after contract award, and can include defects, errors, or inconsistencies within the Request for Proposals (RFP) documents. If any project scope issues are identified, the contractor must present and explain the issues to the agency. Project scope issues do not include items that the contractor should have reasonably discovered prior to contract award. Why use it? The scope validation period allows the contractor to clearly identify any project scope issues that could result in disputes later on. Identifying these potential issues during the early phases of the project minimizes the time and costs required to reach a resolution for both the contractor and the agency. This process also facilitates communication and builds trust. The scope validation period encourages the contractor to conduct an in-depth review of the contract documents, and even perform activities such as a site survey in the early stages of the project. A similar process should have been conducted prior to award of the contract; however, this designated period after the contract is awarded provides an additional cushion of time to identify defects, errors, or inconsistencies. This can prevent a misunderstanding of project scope. Differentiating this time period from the bidding phase can expedite the procurement process. The potential benefits include the enhancement of fast-tracking, improvement of team alignment, earlier knowledge of potential cost issues, and enhanced risk allocation. Scope validation addresses both the alignment strategy and the scope strategy. The scope strategy include a clear understanding of responsibilities and the alignment build toward productive relationships as team members fulfill their responsibilities. When to use it? The scope validation period takes place after the contract has been awarded, typically lasting 90 to 120 days. Completing the scope validation period prior to the kickoff meeting allows the contractor and agency to discuss any project scope issues at that time.

19 Scope Validation Period     A‐79  Table A19 Recommended uses for scope validation period Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n Co ns tru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 19 Scope validation period          = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? During the creation of the RFP, the agency must determine the specifications of the scope validation period. The RFP must clearly explain the intention of the scope validation period, when it begins, when it ends, and what the contractor must produce if project scope issues are identified. After award, the contractor must understand their responsibilities during the scope validation period to ensure this time is used effectively and efficiently. Synthesis of Examples Scope validation periods are a milestone or gated process that provides a verification of the scope. These can range from page-turn meetings on smaller, non-complex projects to formal processes that are contractually described in the documents. The example that follows is quite rigorous, but agencies can create less complex processes for simpler projects. 19 Example 1 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Alternative Project Delivery Division Design- Build Standard Template Documents VDOT provides standard guidance on scope validation in their DB documents. 2.2 Scope Validation and Identification of Scope Issues 2.2.1 Scope Validation Period. The term “Scope Validation Period” is the period of time that begins on Design-Builder’s receipt of Department’s Notice to Proceed and extends for one hundred twenty (120) days from such date of receipt, unless otherwise stated in Exhibit 1. During the Scope Validation Period, Design-Builder shall thoroughly review and compare all of the then- existing Contract Documents, including without limitation the RFP Documents and the Proposal, to verify and validate Design-Builder’s proposed design concept and identify any defects, errors, or inconsistencies in the RFP Documents that affect Design-Builder’s ability to complete its

19 Scope Validation Period     A‐80  proposed design concept within the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) (collectively referred to as “Scope Issues”). The term “Scope Issue” shall not be deemed to include items that Design- Builder should have reasonably discovered prior to the Agreement Date. 2.2.2 Scope Validation Period for Non-Accessible Areas of the Site. The Parties recognize that Design-Builder may be unable to conduct the additional investigations contemplated by Section 4.2.2 below because it will not have access to certain areas of the Site within the Scope Validation Period set forth in Section 2.2.1 above. Design-Builder shall notify Department at the meeting set forth in Section 2.1.2 of all such non-accessible areas and the dates upon which such areas are expected to become accessible. If Department agrees that such areas are non-accessible, then, for the limited purpose of determining Scope Issues that directly arise from geotechnical evaluations for such areas, the term “Scope Validation Period” shall be deemed to be the thirty (30) day period after the date the specified area becomes accessible for purposes of conducting the geotechnical evaluation. If Department does not agree that such areas are non-accessible, then the Scope Validation Period shall not be extended. 2.2.3 Submission Requirements for Scope Issues. If Design-Builder intends to seek relief for a Scope Issue, it shall promptly, but in no event later than the expiration of the Scope Validation Period, simultaneously provide Department and the Alternative Project Delivery Division (APDD) Point of Contact in writing with a notice (“General Notice”) of the existence of such Scope Issue, which General Notice shall generally explain the basis for such Scope Issue. Within twenty-one (21) days of the General Notice, Design-Builder shall provide Department and the APDD Point of Contact with documentation that specifically explains its support for the Scope Issue (“Supporting Documentation”). The Supporting Documentation shall include, among other things: (a) the assumptions that Design-Builder made during the preparation of its proposal that form the basis for its allegation, along with documentation verifying that it made such assumptions in developing its proposal; (b) an explanation of the defect, error or inconsistency in the RFP Documents that Design-Builder could not have reasonably identified prior to the Agreement Date: and (c) the specific impact that the alleged Scope Issue has had on Design-Builder’s price and time to perform the Work. For the avoidance of doubt: (1) Design-Builder shall not be entitled to raise in its Supporting Documentation any Scope Issues that were not previously addressed in a General Notice; and (2) Design-Builder shall have no right to seek any relief for any Scope Issues that have not been specifically identified in a General Notice provided to Department during the Scope Validation Period. 2.2.4 Resolution of Scope Issues. Within a reasonable time after Department’s receipt of the Supporting Documentation described in the Section 2.2.3 above, the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss the resolution of such Scope Issues. If Department agrees that Design-Builder has identified a valid Scope Issue that materially impacts Design-Builder’s price or time to perform the Work, a Work Order shall be issued in accordance with Article 9 hereof. If Department disagrees that Design-Builder has identified a valid Scope Issue that materially impacts Design- Builder’s price or time to perform the Work, then Design-Builder’s recourse shall be as set forth

19 Scope Validation Period     A‐81  in Article 10. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Contract Documents or as a matter of law, Design-Builder shall have the burden of proving that the alleged Scope Issue could not have been reasonably identified prior to the Agreement Date and that such Scope Issue materially impacts its price or time to perform the Work. 2.2.5 Design-Builder’s Assumption of Risk of Scope Issues. The Parties acknowledge that the purpose of the Scope Validation Period is to enable Design-Builder to identify those Scope Issues that could not reasonably be identified prior to the Agreement Date. By executing this Agreement, Design-Builder acknowledges that the Scope Validation Period is a reasonable time to enable Design-Builder to identify Scope Issues that will materially impact Design-Builder’s price or time to perform the Work. After the expiration of the Scope Validation Period, with the sole exception of those Scope Issues made the subject of a General Notice during the Scope Validation Period and subject to valid requests for Work Orders in accordance with Section 2.2.3 above, the Parties agree as follows: .1 Design-Builder shall assume and accept all risks, costs, and responsibilities of any Scope Issue arising from or relating to the Contract Documents, including but not limited to conflicts within or between the RFP Documents and Proposal; .2 Design-Builder shall be deemed to have expressly warranted that the Contract Documents existing as of the end of the Scope Validation Period are sufficient to enable Design- Builder to complete the design and construction of the Project without any increase in the Contract Price or extension to the Contract Time(s); and .3 Department expressly disclaims any responsibility for, and Design-Builder expressly waives its right to seek any increase in the Contract Price or extension to the Contract Time(s) for, any Scope Issue associated with any of the Contract Documents, including but not limited to the RFP Documents. 2.2.6 Waiver of Rights. The failure of Design-Builder to meet the submission requirements required under Section 2.2.3 above for a Scope Issue, including but not limited to the times for providing notice and documentation of the Scope Issue, shall conclusively constitute a waiver of Design-Builder’s rights to seek relief for such Scope Issue. 2.2.7 Failure of Technical Proposal to Meet Requirements of the Contract Documents. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 2.2 or elsewhere in the Contract Documents, Department shall have no responsibility in the event Design-Builder’s Proposal fails to meet the requirements of the Contract Documents, regardless of whether: (a) Department modified the RFP Documents to permit Design-Builder to implement a technical approach; (b) Department accepted Design-Builder’s Proposal; or (c) any other action or inaction of Department is alleged by Design-Builder.

19 Scope Validation Period     A‐82  References Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Design-Build Standard Template Documents, November 2016, Alternative Project Delivery Division, 2016 [Online]. Available: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/APD_Office_Page/2016_VDOT_ Design-Build_Standard_Template_Documents_Parts_3,_4_5.pdf, accessed February 7, 2018.

20 Public Announcements    A‐83  20 Public Announcements Public Announcements, such as through an agency newsletter, explains to the public what a D-B is and the benefits it offers a specific project. What is it? A project newsletter distributed to individuals or to groups interested in the project and/or posted on a project web site. Project newsletters have traditionally been used to share information on progress updates, traffic switches, road closures, and the opening of new facilities. However, this tool focuses on the use of a project newsletter to inform the public of what a D-B is and the benefits it is bringing to a project. Examples of project benefits include improvements to: cost, schedule, quality, safety, and access. Why use it? The agency implements this tool to inform the community about project progress and how the delivery method is yielding positive results. The project newsletter provides general information to the public, answers typical questions, and explains the benefits of using D-B. This communication builds understanding, trust, and community support for the project. Potential benefits from public support include avoiding delays and agency control of how information is presented to the public. Public announcements address the alignment strategy by helping to communicate with the public about project goals and establishing positive relationships. When to use it? Project newsletters can be used at any time during the project. They can be especially helpful in highlighting significant project delivery benefits. When a project is completed and open to the public, a newsletter can be sent to thank the public for their patience during construction and to reiterate the benefits of D-B. Public announcements are not needed on every D-B project or at every phase. They should only be used when there is a specific reason to make a public announcement. In general, the public is interested in how a project benefits a community and the cost and schedule. However, care should be taken not to confuse the public with details of D-B delivery or to debate with opponents of D-B delivery. Regarding the use of public announcements, one experienced contractor said, “Do it very selectively when there is a specific reason and a very specific proactive outcome desired from the announcement so as not to open up debate that’s not value added or risks the project or certain innovations.”

20 Public Announcements    A‐84  This tool is recommended for projects of medium to large size and from moderately complex to complex. Smaller projects may also benefit if there is some special impact the public will experience due to the D-B contracting method. Table A20 Recommended uses for public announcements Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n C lo se ou t N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0 M 20 Public announcements           = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Share project newsletters with the public and the media. They can be distributed via email, in paper form at public meetings, and on the project web site. Synthesis of examples Public announcements related to D-B can take the form of special articles and sections developed for newsletter, blogs, and various forms of electronic communications (e.g. social media). The public announcements related to D-B are usually integrated into other project related public announcements. It is important for the announcement to explain how D-B differs from other types of project delivery methods, especially Design-Bid-Build, being the traditional approach. Content of the D-B specific public announcements include, but necessarily limited to:  Explanation of D-B,  Benefits of using D-B,  Justification for using D-B on the project, and  Identification of the D-B contractor. 20 Example 1 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Blog ADOT has used blogs to communicate information to constituents about design-build. The sample blog below weas used by ADOT to introduce the basic concepts of design-build.

20 Public Announcements    A‐85  ADOT Blog, Thursday, July 11, 2011 Design-build projects satisfy the need for speed (and save money, too) In less than a year, spectacular ramps and bridges have risen from bare ground in the southeast Valley. By this fall, they’ll link 12 miles of new high occupancy vehicle lanes on the Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) with Interstate 10 and the Loop 101 (Price Freeway) in Chandler -- see the project's progress in the slide show above. On the other side of the Valley, crews are adding new HOV lanes - and improving three bridges - on the Loop 101 (Agua Fria Freeway) from I-10 near Avondale to I-17 in north Phoenix. In just six months, they have built and paved 18 miles of the 30-mile project and are eyeing completion by this fall. Both of these projects are utilizing the “design-build” (D-B) method of delivery – and proving that D-B can yield big results in a relatively small amount of time. That’s why D-B is one of the “alternative delivery methods” that ADOT uses for freeway projects when doing so makes sense. The D-B concept involves pairing a design team with a construction team to create one, synergistic entity that delivers a freeway project from beginning to end. This differs from the more traditional “design-bid-build concept” where one firm designs a project that is then put out to bid and awarded to a construction company to build. Contractors that bid on ADOT’s D-B projects must not only meet quality standards, but also demonstrate their capability to complete the project on time and on budget at a much faster and dynamic pace.[Editor’s note: This is a key point to emphasize. The D-B team must have the capability to meet quality, schedule, and cost goals.] Because D-B projects are schedule-driven, they can make driving through the work zone a bit more challenging. The faster pace means doing more – and more complicated – work in a shorter amount of time. For motorists, it can mean numerous restrictions or detours while the project is underway. The flip side? The same restrictions or detours occur, but are spread out over a longer period of time for a project that takes longer to complete and probably costs more. The D-B method can save time and money by overlapping the design and construction phases. Other benefits include improved design efficiency through on-going constructability reviews and better management of the project schedule. Because the design firm and construction company typically form a joint venture to deliver the freeway project, ADOT also benefits from having a single point for contractual responsibility if challenges arise.

20 Public Announcements    A‐86  With so many benefits, why doesn’t ADOT use D-B for all of its projects? Simply put, not all freeway projects are good candidates. The best project candidates do not require significant right- of-way acquisition or extensive, complicated relocation of existing utilities. In addition, ADOT believes that D-B is most advantageous when transportation improvements are immediately needed to improve safety and reduce high traffic volume or chronic congestion. So the next time you’re maneuvering through a sea of orange cones on the Loop 101 in Peoria or find yourself on a detour route because the Loop 202 is closed in Chandler, remember that ADOT is working to make your everyday commute safer and more efficient – and saving time and taxpayer dollars at the same time! 20 Example 2 Winona Bridge Project, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Although this project is a CM/GC, it provides a useful example on how an agency can communicate with the public in words and images about a project delivered through an ACM. MnDOT distributed project newsletters on the Winona Bridge Project that highlight the benefits of CM/GC. The newsletters provided a brief definition of CM/GC and the general benefits of using the method, followed by a description of how specific benefits manifested themselves.

20 Public Announcements    A‐87 

20 Public Announcements    A‐88 

20 Public Announcements    A‐89  References Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Design-Build Projects Satisfy the Need for Speed (and Save Money, too), July 11, 2011, [Online]. Available: https://uat.azdot.gov/media/blog/posts/2011/07/07/design-build-projects-satisfy-the-need-for- speed-(and-save-money-too), accessed Sept. 23, 2017. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Benefits of the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) Delivery Method, N.D. [Online]. Available: www.dot.state.mn.us/winonabridge/docs/benefits-of-cmgc.pdf, accessed July 30, 2017. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Case study Work package #1 – Early Piling Procurement, N.D. [Online]. Available: www.dot.state.mn.us/winonabridge/docs/package1.pdf, accessed July 30, 2017.

21 Delegation of Authority     A‐90  21 Delegation of Authority This is an action taken by the agency to empower the agency engineer in charge of a project to make project decisions that often have an impact on the project budget. What is it? The agency delegates authority, with specific limits, in writing to the agency engineer managing the project. This enables some project decisions to be made quickly by personnel with specific project knowledge, even when these decisions may increase the project budget. Why use it? The authority to execute agreements and increase the budget up to a designated amount is placed in the hands of the agency engineer in charge of the project. By delegating authority, the project team has confidence that project decisions will be made in a timely fashion so that schedule commitments can be met. Decisions made by those familiar with a project can avoid unintended consequences which sometimes arise when decisions are made from those not involved day-to- day in a project. Potential benefits include schedule acceleration, the ability to fast track, and owner control of design. Delegation of authority addresses the scope strategy and the design quality strategy. Clarity in responsibilities is part of the scope strategy, and delegation of authority clarifies the responsibility of making timely decisions belongs to the agency engineer. Knowing that the agency engineer has this responsibility encourages the D-B to raise questions because they know that they are speaking with the decision makers. When to use it? A memo delegating authority and specifying authority limits should be written at the end of the procurement process. The authority granted is in effect from design through closeout. This tool is recommended for projects of all sizes and complexities.

21 Delegation of Authority     A‐91  Table A21 Recommended uses for delegation of authority Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n C lo se ou t N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 21 Delegation of authority           = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Often an agency selects an alternative delivery method because they want the project to have an accelerated schedule. To keep the project team advancing the project, project decisions must be made quickly. Agencies often have an extended process for approving agreements and allocating additional funds. Delegation of authority to the agency engineer managing the project creates a streamlined process. Synthesis of examples The delegation of authority should occur before it is needed, typically at the time of notice to proceed. Extent and limitations of the authority should be clearly stated. The person given authority should be supported by upper management to use that authority. Some agencies associate the delegation of authority with their change order process, but it should be thought of as a broader authority that can address design exceptions and other agreements. A21 Example 1 St. Louis District Safety Project, Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) This design-build project included 31 improvements across two counties. To help the Department of Transportation (DOT) remain nimble in responding to project team requests, the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission delegated authority to the DOT project director to execute agreements that were beneficial to the project. This gave the D-B team confidence that project issues would be handled expeditiously by a knowledgeable DOT staff member. The contents of the memo delegating authority is shown below. SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to [name], Project Director for the St. Louis District Safety Improvements Design-Build Project in Franklin and St. Charles Counties.

21 Delegation of Authority     A‐92  The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission at its August 2013 meeting delegated to the Chief Engineer position or his designee to approve and execute documents and expend funds on their behalf for the following items, except that nay change resulting in the expenditure of 2 percent over the project costs will be presented to the Commission.  Escrow of Bid Documents – Approve authority to execute agreements, affidavits, and related documents and expend funds for costs associated with the escrow of bid documents on the project.  Agreements – Approve authority to execute agreements with local governments including other entities for cost-share, enhancements, use of property, environmental mitigations, utilities, etc. on the project, subject to approval as to form by Chief Counsel’s Office and Commission Secretary attestation.  Railroad Agreements – Approve authority to execute agreements pertaining to railroads, subject to approval as to form by Chief Counsel’s Office and Commission Secretary attestation.  Construction Change Orders – Approve authority to approve construction change orders on the project.  Consulting Engineering Services – Approve authority to execute contracts for engineering services needed subject to approval as to form by Chief Counsel’s Office and Commission Secretary attestation.  Other – Approve Authority to expend funds for the project, as well as approve, execute, sign, and seal project specific documents.  Design Exceptions – Approve authority to sign design exceptions specific to the design of the project currently delegated to the State Design Engineer and the State Bridge Engineer, subject to consultation with the department’s technical experts. References Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Change Orders, UDOT 08B-10, Revised August 17, 2017 [Online]. Available: https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=10539014823834013, accessed July 23, 2018.

22 Contractor‐Controlled Quality Control Testing     A‐93  22 Contractor-Controlled Quality Control Testing This tool allows contractors to perform their own quality control (QC) testing. What is it? This tool removes restrictions placed on contractors that forces them to retain an independent third party to perform their QC testing and inspection. Why use it? Allowing contractors to perform QC functions using their own personnel simplifies scheduling, reduces costs, and may maintain equivalent levels of quality when compared to requiring a third party to perform the same functions. This is done by removing contract clauses demanding the use of independent laboratories or independent inspectors, and by inserting clauses that present contractors with the option to use their own personnel provided certain conditions are met. Allowing contractors to utilize their own directly employed personnel for QC testing and inspection reflects that as the industry evolves, the more mature contractors are embracing quality management as a key differentiator, and have embraced integrating quality management into their core performance goals. For DB Contractors, this allows them to be more cost effective, thereby giving them a competitive advantage, and ultimately the agency benefits from a lower price. Larger projects may be able to support a contractor-provided project-specific lab, whereas smaller or more remote projects may benefit from using a local lab rather than incur the cost of mobilizing a dedicated lab. A critical decision the agency must make before a contractor can determine which approach is most viable, is whether the quality control personnel are fully dedicated to quality management, or if they are, say, the contractor’s superintendent or foremen, who are also responsible for cost and schedule. A variant of this model, is for an agency to accept contractor sampling that is still sent to an independent lab for testing, for instance, onsite slump/air testing by the contractor with cylinders being sent to a lab for testing. Potential benefits include cost savings and schedule savings. Cost savings can be realized by the elimination of the overhead and profit costs of independent laboratories, and cost savings and schedule savings can be gained from the contractor not having to wait for another party to perform testing. Contractor-controlled quality control testing addresses both the construction quality strategy and the construction efficiency strategy. Many construction projects have aggressive schedules, thus having a quality control person on site when they are needed is important to ensure quality during construction as well as assure the efficiency of the construction process. When to use it? In fairness to all bidders, the agency should specify whatever options they will allow in the request for proposal. Many agencies expressed hesitation in using this tool because they felt like it opened the opportunity for quality to be compromised. Agencies can thoughtfully develop quality

22 Contractor‐Controlled Quality Control Testing     A‐94  management programs with process and checks on quality to assure that agency quality standards are being met with this tool. This tool can be used with projects of all sizes and complexities. Table A22 Recommended uses for contractor-controlled quality control testing Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 22 Contractor controlled QC testing         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? Contract clauses or standard specifications that require a contractor to retain a third party independent laboratory to perform QC inspection and testing should be removed. A new clause must be added that establishes acceptable certification bodies or levels that inspectors and technicians directly employed by the contractor need to have. Synthesis of examples For this tool to be successful, the agency should retain remedies to enforce contract provisions that the contractor uses only appropriately certified staff, keeps detailed records, and maintains open and frequent communication with the agency regarding quality matters. 22 Example 1 Portland Transit Mall Revitalization, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) TriMet typically requires that contractors hire an outside, independently certified laboratory to perform QC testing. On TriMet’s South Corridor Light Rail extension project however, the agency allowed the contractor to use directly employed inspectors and technicians to do the QC testing. TriMet’s willingness to do this was based in part on the reputations for quality and integrity of both parties in the contracting joint venture and in part on TriMet’s requirement that all inspectors and technicians be nationally certified to perform the needed inspections and testing. This decision saved the project money and streamlined the scheduling process by removing the inherent

22 Contractor‐Controlled Quality Control Testing     A‐95  scheduling complications, which occur when dealing with an independent firm without sacrificing quality. (This example is from NCHRP Report 808, Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction.) References Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Contractor Quality Control Plans, Contractor Guidelines, and Example Quality Control Plan, USDOT, Federal Lands Highway Office, Washington, D.C. Feb 1998 [Online]. Available: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/construction/documents/contractor-qc-plans.pdf, accessed February 18, 2018. Molenaar, K., D.D. Gransberg, and D.N. Sillars, NCHRP Report 808, Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 53. State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Quality Control Manual for Hot Mix Asphalt for the Quality Control Quality Assurance Process, Division of Construction, Jun 2009 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/publications/qcqaman1.pdf, accessed February 18, 2018.

23 Contractor Involvement in Establishing Quality Control Standards  A‐96  23 Contractor Involvement in Establishing Quality Control Standards This tool allows for changes to quality control standards for construction which may result in more efficient quality management programs. What is it? This tool recognizes the unique nature of every construction project and the value that contractors can add to quality management processes by streamlining sampling frequencies and requirements where appropriate. Why use it? The purpose of this tool is to customize and/or streamline quality control on projects, where appropriate, without sacrificing overall quality and still meeting the goals of the project. This tool allows the agency to judiciously consider alterations to its traditional specifications and testing requirements for construction. While an agency may typically apply traditional standards to every project, adopting the approach of this tool would mean an agency is willing to consider accepting some project-specific quality specifications instead of traditional standards when opportunities arise and the contractor clearly presents reasons to do so. Potential benefits include cost savings and schedule acceleration when a more efficient and less- costly process for achieving quality construction on a project is agreed upon. Contractor involvement in establishing quality control standards addresses both the construction quality strategy and the construction efficiency strategy. Quality is maintained because appropriate quality standards are kept in place. Construction efficiency is maintained because unnecessary quality requirements are eliminated. When to use it? Contractor proposed alternate quality standards/specifications can be used on projects with prescriptive, not performance-based, quality specifications and is particularly useful in dealing with innovative or uncommon situations. The flexibility afforded by this tool is useful in instances where materials are used in a non-traditional manner. This tool is recommended for medium to large projects that are moderately complex to complex. It can be considered for small, non-complex projects if the work differs from standard construction.

23 Contractor Involvement in Establishing Quality Control Standards  A‐97  Table A23 Recommended uses for contractor involvement in establishing QC standards Contract administration phase Project complexity Project size A lig nm en t D es ig n C on st ru ct io n Cl os eo ut N on -c om pl ex M od er at el y co m pl ex C om pl ex ≤ $1 0 M $1 0 M - $5 0 M > $5 0M 23 Contractor involvement in establishing QC standards         = Recommended;  = Consider Case-by-Case;  = Not Recommended How to use it? This tool is useful in either a formal or an informal manner. Used formally, this tool will involve the addition of contract language allowing for the use of contractor proposed alternatives to quality specifications, only if sufficient justification is provided and documented. In order to use this tool informally, the agency and the contractor must establish a close working relationship in which both parties operate in good faith. It must also be recognized that the decision to approve or deny a project-specific specification ultimately resides with the agency. The agency should have agency discipline experts participate in the review of any deviations from quality control standards. The agency project manager must be able to articulate to other agency personnel the benefit of the proposed changes and create an inclusive environment where discipline experts are actively engaged in the review process. Synthesis of examples The quality control standards should be in alignment with the intended function of the constructed facility. In the park path project below, where the agency allowed modified quality standards for an asphalt bike path, in another circumstance the agency may have required the standard specification if heavy maintenance vehicles or utility company vehicles access the path to maintain facilities along the path. 23 Example 1 Willamette River Bridge Project, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) ODOT successfully used this tool on their Willamette River Bridge project where I-5 crosses the Willamette River. On that project, a contractor and agency team customized quality standards and

23 Contractor Involvement in Establishing Quality Control Standards  A‐98  reduced the agency’s quality control costs based on several contractor proposed alternatives to ODOT’s standard quality specifications. In one case, hot-mixed asphaltic cement was to be used to pave the trails in the parks surrounding the project in order to meet the needs of the local park agencies. The typical ODOT hot-mixed asphaltic cement (HMAC) specification required development and submittal of project specific mix designs and optimum rolling procedures designed to provide the highest quality results on major paving jobs. In this case, those specifications would have added costs for very little return, as the demand on bike path pavement is so much less than the demand on interstate highway pavement, which the specifications were written for. The costs of the submittals and testing, when spread into the very small quantities needed for the bike paths, resulted in extremely high prices for the pavement. After the contractor made their case for the alteration, ODOT was able to write a “minor hot mix asphalt” specification that was more in line with what the local park agencies used on their bike path projects, meeting the needs of the project and its stakeholders at a reduced cost. (This example is from NCHRP Report 808, Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction.) References Molenaar, K., D.D. Gransberg, and D.N. Sillars, NCHRP Report 808, Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 53.