Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods, Volume 3: Research Overview (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.

13 C H A P T E R 4 4.1 Introduction The research team developed D-B-B, CM-GC, and D-B Integrated Definition (IDEF) models to break down the contract administration processes to an appropriate level of detail. The tradi- tional D-B-B IDEF model was used as a baseline comparison for the alternative contract admin- istration processes. The CM-GC and D-B models were used to guide the research and case study data collection, describe the methods and tools to be included in the guidebooks, and organize the layout of the AASHTO guidebooks. IDEF modeling is an illustration tool used to portray complex processes using activity nodes with inputs, outputs, constraints, and mechanisms. See Appendices B and C for a more detailed description accompanying the D-B-B, CM-GC, and D-B IDEF models developed. The research team benefited from the expertise of Stuart Anderson of Texas A&M Uni- versity’s College of Engineering to develop the initial IDEF models. The University of Colorado Boulder hosted an IDEF modeling charrette with the research team and Dr. Anderson to collab- oratively develop IDEF Level 0 and Level 1 for the D-B-B, CM-GC, and D-B contract admin- istration models. The research team then conducted multiple interviews with practitioners consisting of agency representatives, consultants, and contractors, while iterating on each model’s development. The resultant D-B-B, CM-GC, and D-B IDEF process models can be seen in Appendices B and C. The IDEF models that were developed focused on contract administration functions and their connections through inputs and output. Details of mechanisms and constraints were discussed during the case studies. The IDEF models were informed by the AASHTO Construction Guide Specifications; AASHTO Guide for Consultants; current ACM state agency manuals; current ACM state agency construction manuals; ACM state agency RFPs; consultant subject-matter expert knowledge; and agency representative surveys, interviews, and case studies. Prior to developing the process models, the research team investigated appropriate process modeling methods and ultimately focused on two process models: IDEF and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). 4.2 Choosing an Appropriate Process Modeling Approach To ensure the best presentation of data, the researchers compared two competing process models: IDEF0 and BPMN. Each model was reviewed to find a process model to present the overall post-contract award process, methods, and tools to be used in an easy-to-comprehend graphical format. The researchers compiled a description of each model from online reviews, manual reviews, and discussions with users. Modeling the Contract Administration Process

14 Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods The primary goal of BPMN is to provide a notation that can be understood by everyone that will perform, manage, and monitor these processes. BPMN creates a standardized bridge for the gap between the business process design and process implementation. It is used to clearly show a process, so that practitioners can replicate that process easily. BPMN is formatted in such a way that the process flow and required decisions are easily understood (i.e., receive input A, perform action B, make decision C, if decision is x go to D, and if decision is y go to E). In contrast, IDEF0 modeling is designed to depict the action items of a process along with their inputs, outputs, constraints, and the tools—or mechanisms—used to perform them. A comparison of the two models through a design invoice review process example can be seen in Figure 4.1. Compared with BPMN, IDEF0’s weakness lies in its lack of decision nodes. This makes it dif- ficult for a practitioner to perform the presented process. Alternatively, IDEF0’s strength is in its clear presentation of activities and the tools needed to perform them. As the purpose of the process model for this project was not to inform practitioners, decision nodes were not needed. Furthermore, information on the process of implementing tools for ACM contract administration is provided in the accompanying guidebooks. Thus, the process models did not need to convey guidance on tool implementation. In summary, IDEF0’s strengths worked well for the primary use of clearly portraying activities and associated methods and for the tools needed to inform the case studies and guidebook framework. Additionally, IDEF0 was previously used on NCHRP projects (e.g., NCHRP Report 390). For these reasons, the researchers chose to use IDEF0. Note that IDEF1, IDEF1X, IDEF3, IDEF4, and IDEF5 process models also exist. However, these models were not considered for the modeling process as their software included appli- cations not required for this research. These applications include information flow analysis, resource loading, simulation, and more. Throughout this research report, IDEF will be used as an equivalent to IDEF0 for simplicity. 4.3 Overview of Integrated Definition Modeling IDEF modeling is an illustration and mapping tool that portrays complex processes using activ- ity nodes with inputs, outputs, constraints, and mechanisms. IDEF consists of a family of modeling languages first developed for the U.S. Air Force in the 1970s for modeling complex manufactur- ing systems (Mayer 1990). Previous transportation-related studies have used IDEF modeling to map processes associated with planning and programming (Lambert et al. 2006), constructa- bility reviews (Fisher et al. 2000), and state DOT information flows (Moor et al. 1985). Since the 1970s, IDEF modeling has advanced to incorporate multiple functions, such as decision analysis and cash loading. However, the needs of this project warranted the most basic of the methods (i.e., IDEF0), which is used for function modeling and description of existing systems. IDEF0 provides easy-to-understand graphics and concise system descriptions using process inputs, controls, outputs, and mechanisms (ICOMs) (Figure 4.2). Inside the box is the function, which is an activity or transformation. This function is iden- tified by a verb phrase that describes what the function must accomplish. Inputs are the data or objects that are transformed by the function to create an output. The output is the data or object produced by the function. Inputs and outputs correspond to work products developed by the agency, design–builder, construction manager, and others. Constraints are conditions that shape or influence the process and output. They are the rules that govern how a function performs. Examples of constraints include contract terms, agency policy, project management procedures, and more. The mechanisms are tools used to perform a function. For this project, mechanisms will define the project participants, roles, and responsibilities associated with each tool.

Modeling the Contract Administration Process 15 BPMN Design Invoice Review Example (a) (b) IDEF Design Invoice Review Example Design quality plan Design submittals Contract Invoice Invoice review checklist (tool) Purchasing staff Funds Review Invoice Pay Invoice Approved invoice Resident engineer Contract administrator Paid invoice Figure 4.1. A design invoice review activity shown with (a) IDEF and (b) BPMN modeling.

16 Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods An example that relates to this project can be seen in Figure 4.3. (Note that this is not actually a part of our IDEF models but is presented as a relevant example). Reviewing a design invoice takes the submitted invoice—along with the design submittals—and creates either an approved, paid invoice or a rejected invoice with comments. However, the IDEF model does not indicate decision factors that determine the output for any particular input. The design contract acts as a constraint that guides execution of the function reviewing design invoice. The contract administrator and project controls system are mechanisms that aid this function. Control Mechanism A0 OutputInput Activity Figure 4.2. IDEF template activity model. Project Controls System A0 Paid Invoice Review Design Invoice Rejected Invoice with Comments Contract Administrator Design Submittals Invoice Design Contract Figure 4.3. IDEF Review Design Invoice Model Level 0 (for examples only).

Modeling the Contract Administration Process 17 Figure 4.3 is an example of the highest level of the task review design invoice. (In the IDEF model notation, this is labeled as A0). This is the highest level in the process hierarchy and encompasses all subprocesses for review design invoice. Subprocesses are described in their own IDEF model and in the lower levels of parent activity. Figure 4.4 shows Level 1 of this IDEF review design invoice model example, which uses activity labels A1, A2, A3, and A(n). It further breaks out the review design invoice process into review work completed, compare against contract estimate, and review accuracy of design invoice. All of these processes are required to review the design invoice. The inputs, constraints, mechanisms, and outputs from Level 0 are all present in Level 1. There are also added outputs for activities that become inputs to other activities and depict how the Level 1 activities relate to each other. Although not shown in this example, there can be additional constraints and mechanisms that do not exist in the level directly above. Each activity in Level 1 can be broken out into a deeper level, similar to the Level 0 to Level 1 parent–child relationship. This activity can be further broken down as far as desired by the user whenever there are subprocesses. 4.4 Design–Bid–Build, Construction Manager–General Contractor, and Design–Build Integrated Definition Model Introduction (Level 1) This section compares Level 1 (highest level) of D-B-B, CM-GC, and D-B IDEF models. All three models work toward the final output of a completed project but achieve this outcome in slightly different ways. The highest level of the detailed IDEF process descriptions for D-B-B delivery is shown in Figure 4.5. These IDEF models were developed from an agency’s perspective and focus on the tasks the agency needs to perform. Figure 4.4. IDEF Review Design Invoice Model Level 1 (for example only).

18 Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods The agency primarily administers the contracts while the designers and contractors are ful- filling work tasks. Therefore, each node in Level 1 begins with “Administer.” D-B-B, D-B, and CM-GC have three, four, and five main processes, respectively, as shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.2 shows a more detailed comparison of the major activities a state agency performs and how these activities are structured across the three models. Gaps in Table 4.2 highlight dif- ferences in the models. In addition to the difference in activities, the models have differences in inputs, outputs, and constraints. Other differences include the stakeholders involved in various activities and the timing of their involvement. The completed IDEF models are available upon request by contacting Mounir El Asmar at Arizona State University or Keith Molenaar at the University of Colorado at Boulder. To further understand the models, each of the Level 1 activities are discussed. In Activity A1 Administer Alignment Between CM-GC, Designer, and Owner, the owner holds a kickoff and team alignment meeting in which the payment schedule, work package execution flow, communication plan, organizational structure, and roles and responsibilities of the owner are discussed and formalized. The project management plans (i.e., cash flow schedule, public rela- tions plan, construction plan, risk management plan, quality management plan, and schedule Figure 4.5. Level 1 of the D-B-B IDEF Model. D-B-B D-B CM-GC A1 Administer Alignment Between the DOT Team A2 Administer D-B-B Construction A3 Administer D-B-B Closeout A1 Administer Alignment Between D-B and Owner A2 Administer D-B Design A3 Administer D-B Construction A4 Administer D-B Closeout A1 Administer Alignment Between CM-GC, Designer, and Owner A2 Administer CM-GC Design A3 Administer CM-GC Preconstruction Services A4 Administer CM-GC Design A5 Administer CM-GC Closeout Table 4.1. Level 1 IDEF Model comparison of D-B-B, D-B, and CM-GC.

D-B-B IDEF Model Framework CM-GC IDEF Model Framework D-B IDEF Model Framework AA Administer D-B-B Design A21 Ensure Design Compliance A211 Ensure Environmental Compliance A212 Manage Utilities and Permits A213 Manage ROW and Temporary Construction Easements A214 Ensure Functional Requirements A215 Ensure Schedule Requirements A22 Review Design Package A23 Approve Design Invoice A24 Perform Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Value Engineering, and/or Applicable Sustainability Measure A25 Manage Design Documentation A26 Enact a Contract Modification That Impacts Design A27 Negotiate Post-Design Services A0 Administer D-B-B Contract A0 Administer CM-GC Contract A0 Administer D-B Contract A1 Administer Alignment Between State DOT Team A11 Conduct Kickoff Meeting A12 Administer Team Alignment Meeting A13 Finalize Project Plans A131 Finalize Stakeholder Management Plans A132 Finalize Cash Flow, Schedule of Values, and Schedule A133 Review Quality Management Plans and Finalize Risk Management Plan A134 Finalize Construction Implementation Plans A135 Develop Project Plan Package A1 Administer Alignment Between CM-GC, Designer, and Owner A11 Conduct Kickoff Meeting A12 Administer Team Alignment Meeting n A13 Pursue CM-GC Project Delivery Innovations A14 Align Project Plans A131 Align Stakeholder Management Plans A132 Agree Upon Cash Flow, Schedule of Values, and Schedule A133 Review Quality Management Plans and Risk Management Plan A134 Align Construction Implementation Plans with Designer, CM-GC, and State DOT A135 Execute Partnering Plan–Align Team Integration A136 Develop Project Plan Package A1 Administer Alignment Between Design–Builder and State DOT A11 Conduct Kickoff Meeting A12 Administer Team Alignment Meeting n A13 Pursue D-B Project Delivery Innovations A14 Align Project Plans A131 Align Stakeholder Management Plans A132 Agree Upon Cash Flow, Schedule of Values, and Schedule A133 Align Quality Management Plans and Risk Management Plan A134 Align Construction Implementation Plans with Design–Builder and State DOT A135 Execute Partnering Plan–Align Team Integration A136 Develop Project Plan Package A2 Administer CM-GC Design A21 Ensure Design Compliance A211 Ensure Environmental Compliance A212 Manage Utilities and Permits A213 Manage ROW and Temporary Construction Easements A214 Ensure Functional Requirements A215 Ensure Schedule Requirements A22 Manage Work Package Coordination A23 Review Design Package A2 Administer D-B Design A21 Ensure Design Compliance A211 Ensure Environmental Compliance A212 Manage Utilities and Permits A213 Manage ROW and Temporary Construction Easements A214 Ensure Functional Requirements A215 Ensure Schedule Requirements A22 Manage Work Package Coordination A23 Review Design Package A24 Approve Design Invoice A25 Perform Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Value Engineering, and/or Applicable Sustainability Measure A26 Manage Design Documentation A27 Enact a Contract Modification That Impacts Design A28 Negotiate Post-Design Services A24 Approve Design Invoice A25 Manage Design Documentation A26 Enact a Contract Modification That Impacts Design Table 4.2. Design–Bid–Build, Construction Manager–General Contractor, and Design–Build Model activities. (continued on next page)

D-B-B IDEF Model Framework CM-GC IDEF Model Framework D-B IDEF Model Framework A3 Administer CM-GC Preconstruction Services A31 Review CM-GC Input for Design A32 Review Project Management Plans A33 Negotiate GMP A34 Approve CM-GC Preconstruction Services Invoices A35 Enact CM-GC Contract Modifications A36 Manage CM-GC Documentation A2 Administer D-B-B Construction A21 Manage Legal Relations A22 Manage Public Relations A23 Manage Stakeholders A24 Manage Civil Rights (DBE, Local, Veterans, and so on) A25 Manage Labor Agreements A26 Manage Materials A231 Sample and Verify Materials A232 Test Materials A233 Certify Materials A27 Control and Inspect Work A241 Inspect Work for Conformance of Plans and Specifications A242 Review Completion of Punch List Items A243 Document the Daily Work, Compliance, and Quality A244 Manage RFI Process A245 Manage Submittal Process A246 Monitor QA-QC A247 Manage Nonconformances A248 Review Nonconformance Design Solution A28 Execute Supplemental Agreements A251 Receive Change Order A252 Estimate Cost and Time Adjustments A253 Negotiate Cost and Time Adjustments at Site Level A254 Review Change Order A255 Execute Change Order A4 Administer CM-GC Construction A41 Manage Legal Relations A42 Manage Public Relations A43 Manage Stakeholders A44 Manage Civil Rights (DBE, Local, Veterans, and so on) A45 Manage Labor Agreements A41 Manage Materials A431 Sample and Verify Materials A432 Test Materials A433 Certify Materials A42 Control and Inspect Work A441 Inspect Work for Conformance of Plans and Specifications A442 Review Completion of Punch List Items A443 Document the Daily Work, Compliance, and Quality A444 Manage RFI Process A445 Manage Submittal Process A446 Monitor CM-GC QA-QC A447 Manage Nonconformances A448 Review Nonconformance Design Solution A43 Review Potential Additional Scope A451 Review Shared Risk Contingency A452 Review State DOT Risk Contingency A44 Execute Supplemental Agreements A461 Receive Change Order A462 Estimate Cost and Time Adjustments A463 Negotiate Cost and Time Adjustments at Site Level A464 Review Change Order A3 Administer D-B Construction A31 Manage Legal Relations A32 Manage Public Relations A33 Manage Stakeholders A34 Manage Civil Rights (DBE, Local, Veterans, and so on) A35 Manage Labor Agreements A31 Manage Materials A331 Sample and Verify Materials A332 Test Materials A333 Certify Materials A32 Control and Inspect Work A341 Inspect Work for Conformance of Plans and Specifications A342 Review Completion of Punch List Items A343 Document the Daily Work, Compliance, and Quality A344 Monitor Design–Build QA-QC A345 Manage Nonconformances A346 Review Nonconformance Design Solution A33 Execute Supplemental Agreements A351 Receive Change Order A352 Estimate Cost and Time Adjustments A353 Negotiate Cost and Time Adjustments at Site Level A354 Review Change Order Table 4.2. (Continued).

D-B-B IDEF Model Framework CM-GC IDEF Model Framework D-B IDEF Model Framework A4 Administer D-B Closeout A31 Conduct Final Inspection A311 Perform Inspection A312 Review Punch List Work A32 Review Final Turnover Documentation A321 Review As-Built Plans A322 Review Contractor Turnover Documentation A323 Review Contractor Payments A33 Review Invoice for Final Payment A34 Review Corrective Action Completion A35 Execute Contractor Release A36 Conduct Contractor Evaluation and Lessons Learned A5 Administer D-B Closeout A51 Conduct Final Inspection A511 Perform Inspection A512 Review Punch List Work A52 Review Final Turnover Documentation A521 Review As-Built Plans A522 Review Contractor Turnover Documentation A523 Review Contractor Payments A53 Review Invoice for Final Payment A54 Review Corrective Action Completion A55 Execute Contractor Release A56 Conduct Contractor Evaluation and Lessons Learned A57 Execute Warranties A4 Administer D-B Closeout A41 Conduct Final Inspection A411 Perform Inspection A412 Review Punch List Work A42 Review Final Turnover Documentation A421 Review As-Built Plans A422 Review Contractor Turnover Documentation A423 Review Contractor Payments A43 Review Invoice for Final Payment A44 Review Corrective Action Completion A45 Execute Contractor Release A46 Conduct Contractor Evaluation and Lessons Learned A47 Execute Warranties Note: ROW = right-of-way; n = indication of when an activity is repeated multiple times (i.e., Meeting 1, Meeting 2, Meeting n); DBE = disadvantaged business enterprise; RFI = request for information. A29 Resolve Disputes A210Measure Progress and Pay Contractor A271 Receive Contractor Invoice A272 Review Payment Invoice A273 Execute Payment A211Acquire Project Completion Documentation A212Ensure As-Builts are Being Developed by Contractor A465 Execute Change Order A45 Resolve Disputes A46 Measure Progress and Pay Contractor A481 Receive Contractor Invoice A482 Review Payment Invoice A483 Execute Payment A47 Acquire Project Completion Documentation A48 Ensure As-Builts are Being Developed by Designer and CM-GC A355 Execute Change Order A34 Resolve Disputes A35 Measure Progress and Pay Contractor A371 Receive Contractor Invoice A372 Review Payment Invoice A373 Execute Payment A36 Acquire Project Completion Documentation A37 Ensure As-Builts are Being Developed by Design–Builder

22 Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods of values) and preliminary project plans are then updated. D-B-B, D-B, and CM-GC all fol- low similar processes for Activity A1 Administer Alignment. However, each delivery model is different in its execution. For example, in D-B-B the owner has an initial kickoff meeting with the design team. The owner does not hold a preconstruction or kickoff meeting with the construction team until the design is complete and the construction contract is awarded. In contrast, D-B and CM-GC allow the contractor to participate with the owner and designer at the beginning of the project in the kickoff meeting and intermittently throughout the proj- ect in alignment meetings. CM-GC and D-B alignment meetings often occur at the comple- tion of each design–construction package. For CM-GC, Activity A1 Administer Alignment Between CM-GC, Designer, and Owner occurs when the project plans advance from approxi- mately 0 percent–30 percent to approximately 30 percent–60 percent of design completion and involves team integration of the state DOT, contractor, and designer. For D-B, Activity A1 Administer Alignment Between Design–Builder and DOT involves more alignment of the state DOT’s and the contractor’s preliminary plans, highlighting the differences in the timing of contractor involvement. Activity A2 Administer Design is an activity for the contractor in a D-B and CM-GC. A contractor in a D-B-B does not use this activity, since design is 100 percent complete when the D-B-B construction contract is awarded. For both D-B and CM-GC in Activity A2 Admin- ister Design, the owner reviews the design work packages for overall requirements compliance. Design outputs are design completion paperwork; environmental, utilities, and permitting restrictions; added scope; and work packages required to perform the construction services. This model allows for multiple work package development and completion. In CM-GC, the design tasks are led by the owner’s design consultant. However, in D-B these tasks are led by the contractor. Activity 3 Administer Preconstruction Activities covers the contractor’s preconstruction services and is unique to CM-GC. This includes the CM-GC’s input on the design and proj- ect management plans and negotiation of the GMP. In D-B, the contractor provides the same preconstruction services as in CM-GC, but the designer is part of the contractor’s team. Administer Construction (i.e., D-B-B Activity 2, CM-GC Activity 4, and D-B Activity 3) is an activity shared by all three delivery methods. The output of this activity is a completed construc- tion project. Most of the activities under Administer Construction are similar across D-B-B, CM-GC, and D-B. However, there are some differences in risk assignment, contingency funds, and roles during QA-QC. Finally, Administer Project Closeout (i.e., D-B-B Activity 3, CM-GC Activity 5, D-B Activity 4) takes all applicable project documentation from the design, preconstruction, and construction and closes out the job. Similar to the construction activity, there is very little difference between the three delivery model closeouts. D-B and CM-GC may have multiple work packages produc- ing a series of closeouts. However, some D-B and CM-GC projects may include warranties that extend contractor involvement into operations. The research team used the D-B and CM-GC models during the case study phase. First, case study interviews collected information from the state agencies about the process used to either confirm or modify the models presented here. Second, the models were used to help the research team prompt discussion about processes that the state agencies may not have brought up in the case study interviews. Third, the models helped the research team document and organize constraints and mechanisms uncovered during the case studies. Finally, the process in the model was the basis for the tools and methods that became the content for the D-B and CM-GC guidebooks.

Modeling the Contract Administration Process 23 4.5 Summary The newly developed IDEF models were used to guide the case studies described in Task 4. The questions that were asked helped guide case study interviews and identify similarities and differences between the three delivery methods. The findings from the case studies also acted as validation for the draft models, reinforcing their accuracy through discussions with state agency members. These models also served as an outline for the final guidebooks, as the chapters are structured around the alignment, design, preconstruction, construction, and closeout phases.