Implementing Alternative Technical Concepts in All Types of Highway Project Delivery Methods (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.

A-1 Appendix A Literature Review and Content Analysis Updates to the Literature The use of ATCs has increased since the publication of Synthesis 455 in 2014. In terms of scholarly work related to transportation/highway projects, Table A.1. shows the work published after Synthesis 455 was written and several agency presentations on the topic. Several publications present the results of surveys of DOT ATC practices and implementation (Actis et al. 2012, Gransberg at al. 2014, Antoine and Molenaar 2016, Minchin et al. 2017). Table A.1. Subject areas studied on ATCs and ATC implementation in transportation Synthesis 455 documents various methods by which agencies have successfully implemented ATCs in highway project delivery. Information used in the Synthesis 455 was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, analyses of DOT solicitation and policy documents, and case studies of relevant projects (Gransberg et al. 2014). Synthesis 455 reveals that although ATC usage is most common in DB projects, ATCs can be successfully implemented in any project delivery method (Gransberg et al. 2014). Antoine and Molenaar (2016) provides an update on the types of projects using ATCs throughout the US based on an empirical study of 250 transportation projects. Their results show that DOTs more frequently use ATCs in DB with 51% of the 70 DB projects procured by best-value selection in this study using ATCs (Antoine and Molenaar 2016). Antoine and Molenaar (2016) highlights the opportunity to capitalize on the benefits of ATCs in DBB and low bid procured DB projects while presenting an insightful look at the award growth performance of best-value procured DB projects which used ATCs versus best-value procured DB projects which did not use ATCs. Another interesting study, Minchin et al. (2017) identifies best practices which bring uniformity to the ATC process through a survey of 15 State DOTs. The remaining section of this literature review updates highlights the topical areas covered by the publications reviewed. Subject Author(s) DBB DB CMGC PPP Geotechnical risks Financial viability Papernik and Farkas 2009* √ √ Actic et al. 2012* √ Coblentz 2012* √ Dwyre at al. 2012 √ Gransberg et al. 2014** √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Boylston 2014 √ Jolley and Garvin 2014 √ √ Gransberg 2014 √ √ Gad et al. 2015a √ Gad et al. 2015b √ Gransberg et al. 2015 √ Ormijana and Rubio 2015 √ √ Antoine and Molenaar 2016 √ √ √ Gransberg & Pereira 2016 √ Minchin et al. 2017 √ √ * included in Synthesis 455 ** Syntheiss 455 ATCs as a management tool for…Survey of DOT's ATC practices & implementation DOT ATCs Case Studies Types of projects were ATCs are used Delivery methods were ATCs are used Submittal and Evaluation Procedures Policies and Procedures

A-2 ATC Use in Various Project Delivery Methods Various studies show that ATCs are implemented in various project delivery methods such as: • DBB: Gransberg et al. 2014 and Gransberg et al. 2015 • DB: Papernik and Farkas 2009 and Coblentz 2012 • CMGC: Gransberg et al. 2014 • P3: Papernik and Farkas 2009, Jolley and Garvin 2014, and de Ormijana and Rubio 2015. DBB ATCs The studies on DBB projects show that if ATCs are thoughtfully incorporated in project solicitation documents the process can be implemented at any level. To date only three DOTs have included ATCs in DBB projects: Alabama, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. The FHWA Guide to Using ATC and DBB (unpublished FHWA draft 2014) is currently in FHWA review. However, it classifies DBB ATCs into two categories: 1. Full scope: ATC may be submitted to change any aspect of the baseline design except designated “no-go” areas. 2. Limited scope: ATCs may only be submitted in specific areas identified in the solicitation. To date, Missouri is the only DOT to use full scope ATCs. Both Alabama and Michigan chose to limit ATCs to specific aspects, such as maintenance of traffic plans and temporary construction measures. DB ATCs On the other hand, Boylston 2014 evaluated ATCs’ effectiveness in South Carolina DOT using three DB projects. This study shows that ATCs have a positive impact on DB projects’ bottom lines and schedules. The report recommends that more specific definitions and criteria should be developed for qualitative, subjective categories such as innovation. CMGC ATCs Regarding ATC use in CMGC projects, Gransberg et al. (2014) discusses four public agency approaches through an analysis of case study projects. In each of the cases the ATCs were considered conceptual and three of the four assigned a certain amount of weight in the best-value evaluation plan to “innovative technical concepts.” Because of the preconstruction phase associated with CMGC, the agency does not formally review and approve ATCs because there is sufficient time after contract award to ensure that promising ATCs are indeed technically viable and will produce benefits to the project. Utah DOT’s analysis of its CMGC “innovation savings” was 6% of the “anticipated construction price” (Park 2012). The results show that ATCs provide a valuable mechanism to identify the best qualified contractors, in addition to permitting owners to consider innovative design solutions to enhance constructability (Gransberg et al. 2014, Gransberg 2014). Early in the EDC-2 program it was thought that ATCs do not apply to CMGC projects because they are not formalized until after contract award. This question was addressed in the NCHRP 08-112 Phase 2 research plan, and the research guidance from the NCHRP panel to include CMGC in the final guide.

A-3 P3 ATCs Little has been written on ATC usage on P3 projects. Case study examples of the use of ATCs’ on P3 projects are presented in a few papers (Papernik and Farkas 2009, Jolley and Garvin 2014). These examples show that not only is the initial construction cost reduced, but project connectivity and capacity to generate toll revenue is also improved to offset the any additional construction cost incurred by ATC modifications (Ormijana and Rubio 2015). According to Papernik and Farkas (2009): “ATCs helped to reduce the estimated cost of one of the [Maryland Intercounty Connector] contracts by approximately $20 million, which represented a cost savings of nearly 5 percent…As the country's infrastructure continues to age and the costs of construction outpace shrinking budgets, project owners are seeking solutions that will accelerate delivery of critical projects, while keeping costs under control.” ATC Submittal and Evaluation Procedures Some studies focus on ATC submittal and evaluation procedures followed by DOTs (Gransberg et al. 2014, Jolley and Garvin 2014, Gad et al. 2015a, Minchin et al. 2017). Gad el al. 2015a describes the submittal, evaluation, approval, and review procedures followed by state agencies to implement ATCs. This study shows that care must be taken to ensure competing contractors are not discouraged from pursuing ATCs as a result of onerous documentation requirements for ATC submittals. It also shows that the ATC submittal procedures should provide, detailed guidance on the conduct and character of one-on-one meetings, the required content for a responsive ATC submittal, and a description of the procedures for rectification of errors, omissions, and ambiguities. In essence, solicitation documents should be clear about what constitutes an ATC and should describe the ATC evaluation and review process as well as the process for presenting proposed ATCs. Based on methods implemented and lessons learned from P3 projects that Jolley and Garvin (2014) studied, they highlight a potential shift towards using proposer-specific changes to the RFP instead of global addenda. They reported that as owner P3 experience increased the agency’s openness to accepting significant ATCs showed a commensurate increase as a result of the perception that the political and environmental risk profile of the project had become less uncertain. ATC Policies and Procedures The mechanics of ATC policies and procedures, current procurement policies and pre-submittal procedures followed by state transportation agencies were reviewed in two studies (Gransberg et al. 2014, Gad et al. 2015b). One major finding is that when ATCs are incorporated into the procurement process, allowances for clarification of solicitation documents in a confidential manner must also be included. The most important factors for the success of the ATC procurement process are, the ability to safeguard ATCs that contain proprietary content, and the guarantee of ATC confidentiality. During the proposal preparation and submission phase of the procurement, the agency will need to determine the necessary procedural issues involved in confidential meetings and the confidentiality of pre-proposal communications. ATCs as a Risk Management Tool Some papers investigate ATCs as a risk management tool, specifically for geotechnical risks (Dwyre 2012, Gransberg and Tapia 2016), as well as for financial viability (Ormijana and Rubio

A-4 2015). Gransberg and Tapia (2016) recommend ways to address the risk of differing geotechnical site conditions through the employment of ATCs in the procurement process of projects delivered using various project delivery methods. They propose that ATCs can effectively mitigate geotechnical risks in the project procurement phase where pricing is competitive, rather than resorting to post-award change orders for realized geotechnical risks that must be negotiated with a single contractor. The study also recommends taking advantage of the competitive environment inherent to the pre-award process by using ATCs as a means to negotiate the distribution of differing site conditions risk between the parties to the contract. Ormijana and Rubio 2015 show through P3 project cases that ATCs reduce the initial construction cost and thus, improves the capacity to generate toll revenue to offset the extra construction cost, this presents ATCs as a financially viable tool. ATC Solicitation and Program/Policy Document Content Analysis To update the information in Synthesis 455, information was solicited from states which were previously classified as: • “responded - no ATC use”; • “no response - unknown ATC use”; • states that did not provide any RFP/IFB for review in Synthesis 455; • states that did not provide any policy/program document for review in Synthesis 455. Collectively, 34 DOTs provided updated information from that published in Synthesis 455. Updated Data The following tables describe the compiled information: • Table A.2 - Data Collection Summary for Synthesis 455 Update - This table shows the states contacted and information obtained to update the Synthesis 455 with 34 agencies contacted in total. • Table A.3 - ATC Submittal Content from Solicitation Document Content Analysis – This table summarizes the information collected for the nine newly reviewed solicitation documents (RFP/IFB). This information can be used to supplement Synthesis 455’s Table #5. • Table A.4 - Solicitation Document Content Analysis Summary Analysis – This table summarizes the information collected for the nine newly reviewed solicitation docs (RFP/IFB). This information can be used to supplement Synthesis 455’s Table #3. • Table A.5 - Policy/Program Document Content Analysis Summary Analysis – This table summarizes the information collected for the three newly reviewed solicitation docs (RFP/IFB). This information can be used to supplement Synthesis 455’s Table #1. • Table A.6 - Data Collection Summary from Synth 455 & NCHRP 08-112 Update – This table consolidates information from Synthesis 455 and from the recent update as part of this NCHRP 08-112 research project to show the full status of ATC usage throughout the USA.

A-5 Table A.2 - Data Collection Summary for Synthesis 455 Update State DOT/ Agency Uses ATCs? (Y/N) ATCs in PDMS: Any ATC Policy or Program? (Y/N) Type of Document Any ATC solicitation/ project? (IFB/RFP) 1 Alabama Yes DBB & DB No - Yes 2 Arizona Yes DB Yes DB manual Yes 3 Arkansas No - No - - 4 Connecticut Yes DB No - Yes 5 Delaware *Completely informal and very flexible process DB No - NA 6 Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFL) No - No - - 7 Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFL) No - No - - 8 Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFL) No - No - - 9 Georgia Yes DB & P3 Yes DB Manual; Best-Value Technical Proposal Evaluation Manual; Rules of State Department of Transportation Chapter 672-18 Governing Design- Build Procedures; Synopsis of Rule Yes 10 Hawaii No - No - - 11 Illinois Yes P3 No - Yes - Illiana P3 12 Indiana No - No - - 13 Iowa No - No - - 14 Kansas No - No - - 15 Kentucky Yes DB No - Yes 16 Louisiana Yes DB Yes DB manual Yes 17 Michigan Yes DBB & DB Yes DBB Draft Guidebook & DB Proc. Guide Yes 18 Mississippi Yes DB No - Yes

A-6 Table A.2 (cont.) - Data Collection Summary for Synthesis 455 Update State DOT/Agency Uses ATCs? (Y/N) ATCs in PDMS: Any ATC Policy or Program? (Y/N) Type of Document Any ATC solicitation/project ? (IFB/RFP) 19 Montana No - No - - 20 Nebraska Yes DB No In progress In progress 21 New Hampshire Yes DB No - Yes 22 New Jersey No - No - - 23 New Mexico No - No - - 24 North Dakota No - No - - 25 Oklahoma No - No - - 26 Oregon Yes DB Yes DB manual Yes 27 Pennsylvania Yes P3 No - Yes - Rapid Bridge Replacement Project 28 Puerto Rico Yes P3 No - Yes - P3 29 South Carolina Yes DBB & DB No - Yes 30 South Dakota No - No - - 31 Tennessee Yes DB No - Yes 32 West Virginia No - No - - 33 Wisconsin No - No - - 34 Wyoming No - No - - Table A.3 - ATC Submittal Content from Solicitation Document Content Analysis Observed Prelimin- ary Concept* Narrative Explan- ation Drawings Cost Data Identify Devia- tions Schedule Impact ROW Impact Permit Impact Approved ATC Required in Proposal Yes 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 No 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Unclear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Even in cases where no preliminary concept is solicited the ATC process facilitates the pre- approval of ATCs concepts before submittal with the proposal on the proposal due date.

A-7 Table A.4 - Solicitation Document Content Analysis Summary Analysis Information Item No. of 9 total DBB CMGC DB P3 Project delivery method 1 0 7 1 Solicitation type IFB RFP 1 8 Project type Bridge Road 6 3 Information Item No. of 9 total Yes No Unclear ATCs permitted. 9 - - One-on-one meetings. 9 - - Confidentiality guaranteed. 5 3 1 Agency right to amend solicitation. 9 - - Competitors allowed to request confidential clarifications without an ATC. 9 - - Base proposal in addition to ATC required. - 9 - No. of ATCs restricted. 3 6 - Approved ATCs required in proposal. - 9 - Agency ATC response time is specified. 5-14 days; Ave = 7 2 - Table A.5 - Policy/Program Document Content Analysis Summary Analysis Item Description Frequency Remarks Project delivery method DBB CMGC DB P3 - 1 0 2 1 - Yes No Unknown/Unclear - ATCs allowed 4 0 0 - One-on-one meetings authorized 4 0 0 - Confidentiality guaranteed 2 2 0 Reference applicable laws; Sign nondisclosure agreements. Only pre-approved ATCs accepted in proposal 4 0 0 - Approved ATCs required in proposal 0 4 0 - The number of ATCs submitted by a single entity is limited. 2 2 0 - Stipend offered 4 0 0 0.2% - 0.4% Stipend acceptance = DOT owns submitted ATCs 4 0 0 - DOT reserves the right to amend solicitation documents. 4 0 0 - DOT specifies response time to ATC submittals 2 0 2 5-15 days typical Baseline design required in proposal 0 4 0 - ATC review team/personnel is separate from the proposal evaluation team/personnel 0 1 3 -

A-8 Table A. 6 - Data Collection Summary from Synthesis 455 and NCHRP 08-112 Update State DOT/ Agency Uses ATCs? (Y/N) ATCs in PDMS: Any ATC Policy or Program? (Y/N) Type of Document/ Title Any ATC solicitation/project? (IFB/RFP) 1 Alabama Yes DB No - Yes 2 Alaska Yes DB Yes Guide for DB Project Dev Yes 3 American Samoa CMGC 4 Arizona Yes DB Yes DB manual Yes 5 Arkansas No - No - - 6 California Yes DB Yes Alt procure guide Yes 7 Colorado Yes DB Yes CDOT DB Manual 2006 Yes 8 Connecticut Yes DB No - Yes 9 Delaware Informal DB No - NA 10 District of Columbia Yes Unclear Unclear - Unclear 11 Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFL) No - No - - 12 Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFL) No - No - - 13 Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFL) No - No - - 14 Florida Yes IDIQ/DB; DB; P3 Yes DB Manual 15 Georgia Yes DB & P3 Yes See Table 1 Yes 16 Hawaii No - No - - 17 Idaho Yes DB Yes ITP Yes 18 Illinois Yes P3 No - Yes - Illiana P3 19 Indiana No - No - - 20 Iowa Unclear - No - - 21 Kansas No - No - - 22 Kentucky Yes DB No - Yes 23 Louisiana Yes DB Yes DB Manual Yes 24 Maine Yes DB Yes DB General Conditions Yes 25 Maryland Yes DB Unclear - Yes 26 Massachusetts Yes DB Yes DB Guidebook Yes 27 Michigan Yes DBB & DB Yes DBB Draft Guide & DB Guide Yes 28 Minnesota Yes DBB & DB Yes MnDOT DB Manual Yes 29 Mississippi Yes DB No - Yes 30 Montana No - No - - 31 Nebraska Yes DB No In progress In progress 32 Nevada Yes DB Yes Pioneer Guidebook Yes 33 New Hampshire Yes DB No - Yes 34 New Jersey No - No - -

A-9 Table A.6 (cont.) - Data Collection Summary from Synthesis 455 and NCHRP 08-112 Update State DOT/Agency Uses ATCs? (Y/N) ATCs in PDMS: Any ATC Policy or Program? (Y/N) Type of Document / Title Any ATC solicitation/project? (IFB/RFP) 35 New Mexico No - No - - 36 New York Yes DB Yes DB Manual Yes 37 North Carolina Yes P3 DB CMGC Yes DB Policy guide Yes 38 North Dakota No - No - - 39 Ohio Yes DB Yes DB Guidebook Yes 40 Oklahoma No - No - - 41 Oregon Yes DB Yes DB Manual Yes 42 Pennsylvania Yes P3 No - Yes - Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge Replacement Project 43 Puerto Rico Yes P3 No - Yes - P3 44 Rhode Island Yes Unclear Unclear - Unclear 45 South Carolina Yes DBB & DB No - Yes 46 South Dakota No - No - - 47 Tennessee Yes DB No - Yes 48 Texas Yes P3 DB DBM Yes Texas Code Yes 49 Utah Yes CMGC DB Unclear - Yes 50 Vermont Yes DB Unclear - Yes 51 Virginia Yes P3 DB Yes ATC Guidebook Yes 52 Washington State Yes DB Yes DB Project Delivery Guidance Statement Yes 53 West Virginia No - No - - 54 Wisconsin No - No - - 55 Wyoming No - No - -

A-10 ATC Usage Update The following figures further display the findings consolidated for a state of practice in ATC usage throughout the USA. Figure 2.1 shows state of practice in ATC use for all US states/agencies as an update to Synthesis 455. Notable findings are: • Delaware follows a completely informal process not referred to by "ATC." • Puerto Rico ATC use is not by the DOT, ATCs are used in P3 by the Puerto Rico Public- Private Partnerships Authority, Government Development Bank. Figure A.1 shows the states/agencies for which their solicitation and/or policy/program documents were reviewed during the content analysis. Oregon DB Manual not obtained as it is currently being revised by the agency. Figure A.1 - States/agencies with solicitation and/or policy documents reviewed during content analysis New policy documents reviewed include: • Michigan DOT - "DRAFT Guidebook for the Use of ATCs on DBB Projects." • Michigan DOT - "Guidebook for the Procurement of DB Contracts." • Georgia DOT - in addition to DB Manual the agency's "ATC Handbook" and "ATC Evaluation Manual" are reviewed. Note, both documents are project-specific. GDOT

A-11 prepares these two ATC documents only for mega projects especially because new prospective bidders may not be familiar with GDOT’s ATC process. The ATC Handbook is shared with prospective bidders in advance of RFP solicitation and the ATC Evaluation Manual is shared internally to agency personnel. • Puerto Rico P3 ATC policy document is not from the DOT it is from the Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority, Government Development Bank. Summary of New Updates from NCHRP 08-112 Content Analysis 1. Number of agencies that were previously classified as "responded no ATC use" in Synthesis 455 = 14 1. Alabama 2. Connecticut 3. Hawaii 4. Illinois 5. Iowa 6. Kentucky 7. Montana 8. Nebraska 9. New Jersey 10. New Mexico 11. North Dakota 12. Oklahoma 13. Oregon 14. Wisconsin 2. Number of agencies that now have ATC usage out of the above 14 = 6 1. Alabama 2. Connecticut 3. Illinois 4. Kentucky 5. Nebraska 6. Oregon 3. Number of agencies that were previously classified as "no response - known ATC use" in Synthesis 455 = 8 1. Arizona 2. Indiana 3. Louisiana 4. Mississippi 5. Pennsylvania 6. South Carolina 7. Tennessee 8. West Virginia 4. Number of agencies that were previously classified as "no response - unknown ATC use" in Synthesis 455 = 2 1. Arkansas 2. Wyoming It was confirmed that both of these DOTs do not use ATCs. 5. Number of agencies that previously had "solicitation documents reviewed" in Synthesis 455 = 26 6. Number of new solicitation docs (RFP/IFB) added/reviewed for the NCHRP 08-112 update = 9 1. Alabama 2. Connecticut 3. Georgia 4. Kentucky 5. Louisiana 6. Michigan *DBB IFB 7. Michigan *DB RFP 8. New Hampshire 9. Pennsylvania *P3 RFP

A-12 7. Number of agencies that previously had policy/program documents reviewed in Synthesis 455 = 26. Of the 34 agencies contacted to update the Synthesis 455 only six agencies reported having a new or revised ATC policy/program. • New ATC policy/program • Revised ATC policy/program 1. Puerto Rico – P3 Regulations 2. Louisiana – DB 3. Michigan - MI DOT provided both DBB & DB policy docs 4. Arizona 5. Georgia 6. Oregon - the Oregon DOT's DB manual is currently being revised to include ATC language. Notes on Managing Design Information Flow During ATC Review Only five of the new ACM solicitation documents reviewed contained information regarding the management of design risk/liability or design information flow during ATC review. Those were the Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina DOTs. The below list is made of direct extracts from the DB and P3 documents and is included to furnish the panel with the details of each RFP clause. Again because of the absence of relevant ATC case law, the Phase 2 work plan will make this an area of focus in the case study data collection. 1. AL DOT DB RFP - Statement on DB Firm's Designer becoming the Engineer of Record: From “ATC” section pg. 7: The Firm’s engineer shall become the engineer of record for any approved ATC. Any engineer of record shall be properly licensed in the State of Alabama to offer professional engineering services at the time of submittal of written certifications concerning proposed ATCs. From “One-on-One ATC Discussions” section pg. 7: Prior to any Initial ATC submittals, each Firm may request Individual One-on-One ATC discussion meetings in order for the Firm to describe proposed changes to the supplied project plans, project scope, design criteria, and/or construction criteria. The purpose of the Individual One-on-One ATC discussion meeting is to discuss the ATC proposals, answer questions that ALDOT may have related to the ATC proposal, review other relevant information and when possible establish whether the proposal meets the definition of an ATC thereby requiring the submission of a formal ATC proposal. The meeting should be between representatives of the Firm and/or the Engineer of Record and ALDOT as needed to provide feedback on the ATC proposal. 2. MI DOT DBB IFB – refer to section “Design Requirements” pg. 137: The contractor will assume the risk of preliminary and final design costs for the approved ATC and work with the contractor’s engineer of record toward biddable quantities which are to be incorporated into the lump sum maintenance of traffic pay item. This will include all roadway design plans for the approved ATC.

A-13 The typical cross sections for maintenance of traffic will be developed to a degree such that the engineer of record and contractor are satisfied that biddable quantities (to be incorporated into the lump sum maintenance of traffic pay item) are established. The contractor, if awarded the contract, will be responsible for all design costs accrued in developing a finalized set of typical cross sections for the maintenance of traffic. MDOT will not be responsible for any cost associated with project delays due to the redesign and production of plans, specifications and quantities as needed for implementation of the ATC. 3. PennDOT P3 RFP – refer to sections 3.8 & 3.10 From section “3.8 ATCs Requiring Design Exceptions” section pg. 37: Without limitation of Section 3.7 (Incorporation of ATCs into the Project Documents), if an ATC requires a Design Exception, the Department may approve the ATC, conditioned on the Development Entity's obtaining approval of the Design Exception after PPA award at the Development Entity's sole risk and expense. If the Department notifies the Proposer of the Department's approval of such ATC, the Development Entity may, at its sole election, seek approval of the Design Exception in accordance with Section 3.10 (Design Exceptions), and the Proposer shall notify the Department in writing of such election after receiving the Department's conditional approval of the applicable ATC. In the event that the Proposer seeks approval of the Design Exception in accordance with Section 3.10 (Design Exceptions), then the Proposer waives any confidentiality with respect to such Design Exception and any supporting documentation, and such Design Exception may be disclosed to FHWA and other Proposers in accordance with Section 3.10 (Design Exceptions). If such Design Exception is not approved 45 days prior to the Proposal Due Date and provided that such Design Exception was not rejected, the Proposer may include the applicable ATC as part of its Proposal, conditioned on the Development Entity obtaining approval of the Design Exception after PPA award at the Development Entity's sole risk and expense. The Department's conditional approval of an ATC requiring a Design Exception shall not diminish or waive any of the Department's rights to review and reject the Design Exception as set forth in Section 3.10 (Design Exceptions) or the Department's rights to review and reject the Design Exception after PPA award in accordance with the Technical Provisions. From section “3.10 Design Exceptions” section pg. 38: The Department recognizes that certain Design Exceptions may be needed for the Project. Accordingly, in connection with the development of a Stewardship and Oversight Agreement to be entered into by the Department and FHWA in relation to the Project, the Department and FHWA are discussing providing Proposers with certain conditional risk relief for Design Exceptions in the form of the approved Design Exceptions set forth in Section 10.3.5 (Design Exceptions) of the Technical Provisions, with supporting documentation posted on the FTP Site. Except as provided in Section 3.8 (ATCs Requiring Design Exceptions), if the Proposer intends to submit a Proposal that requires a Design Exception that is not listed in Section 10.3.5 (Design Exceptions) of the Technical

A-14 Provisions, the Proposer shall seek approval of the Design Exception in accordance with this Section 3.10 (Design Exceptions). The process for approving Design Exceptions described in Section 10.3.5 (Design Exceptions) of the Technical Provisions shall only apply to Design Documents developed after PPA award or Design Exceptions that have been submitted as part of a conditionally approved ATC pursuant to Section 3.8 (ATCs Requiring Design Exceptions). The Proposer shall submit to the Department all information, plans, data, reports and analyses required by the Department, in its sole discretion, to process the Design Exception, and the Proposer waives all confidentiality with respect to the Design Exception and any information submitted in connection with the Design Exception or the approval thereof. If the Design Exception is approved by the Department and FHWA on or before 45 days prior to the Proposal Due Date, the Design Exception will be added to the list of approved Design Exceptions in Section 10.3.5 (Design Exceptions) of the Technical Provisions by Addendum, and all Proposers will be able to use such Design Exception in their Proposals. Except as provided in Section 3.8 (ATCs Requiring Design Exceptions), if the Proposer submits a Proposal that requires a Design Exception that is not listed in Section 10.3.5 (Design Exceptions) of the Technical Provisions, such Proposal may be deemed not responsive to the requirements of the RFP and may be excluded from further consideration. The Department has no obligation to approve the Design Exception, and reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to discontinue the review and processing of the Design Exception at any time and for any reason. The scope of a Design Exception submitted to the Department in accordance with this Section 3.10 (Design Exceptions) shall relate to the bridge structure and transitional lengths with respect to a Replacement Bridge. 4. SC DOT DB RFP and KYTC DB RFP – These agencies include only explicit clarification that an ATC is not a pre-approved VE change. From SC DOT DB RFP section “#5 Value Engineering” pg. 12 of 27 and KYTC DB RFP section “3.8.5 Value Engineering” pg. 11 of 32: An approved ATC that is not incorporated into the proposal will not be considered a pre- approved value engineering change. Miscellaneous Remarks/Notes from NCHRP 08-112 Content Analysis 1. Delaware DOT uses an informal ATC process (personal interview Hoagland, July 2017). It is characterized as follows: • Completely informal and very flexible process not formally referred to as ATC but same objective. • No program/policy and absolutely no language of ATC or ATC evaluation process or confidential meetings in RFPs. • Agency hosts confidential meetings to entertain proposed ideas for developing ATCs. • Agency does not assess conceptual "ATCs" versus base design. 2. Puerto Rico’s P3 Authority’s P3 Regulations document describes distinctly separate ATC & Alternative Financial Concept (AFC) processes. 3. All DOTs reviewed facilitate one-on-one meetings and provide written clarifications during ATC review.

A-15 4. On the issue of separating the ATC evaluation team from the full proposal evaluation team, most DOTs expressed that this was not viable due to a gross lack of resources to facilitate this separation. Some also feel it is unnecessary because they incorporate features to reduce potential biases during evaluation of full proposals, such as double-blind1 submission reviews. 5. As reported in Synthesis 455, none of the newly reviewed documents in the content analysis directly link ATCs to incentive/disincentive schemes. 6. The only reference to ATC payment provisions was found in a Michigan DOT DBB IFB and stated that bidders who choose to submit a pre-approved ATC will price it as a lump sum pay item. 7. Few DOTs require the formal submission of preliminary/conceptual ATCs; however, all the DOTs reviewed facilitate some form of pre-approval before the submission as a formal ATC. Additionally, the submission of formal ATCs always precedes the deadline for submission of bidders’ full proposals, thus, facilitating DOT review for approval/rejection of ATCs e.g.: a. ALDOT will then give a final determination as to acceptance or denial of each individual ATC before the final bid proposal is completed and submitted. b. CT DOT DB RFP - Proposers should make efforts to submit their proposed ATC’s as early as practical, but no later than the date established in section 2.3, to afford The Department, and themselves, sufficient time for a proper evaluation. c. Puerto Rico P3 Regulations, Section 5.6 item (e) & Section 5.13 pg 25 - This approach will in turn allow the Partnership Committee to review and consider early Proponents’ ATCs and/or AFCs in making the selection decision, to avoid delays and potential conflicts in the design associated with the deferring of ATCs and/or AFCs’ reviews to the post-award period, and ultimately, to obtain the best value for the public. 1 A double blind review means that the reviewers do not know the identity of the proposer and the proposer does not know the identifies of the reviewers.