applying alternative technical concepts to construction ...€¦ · project delivery from...

10

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2408, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 10–16.DOI: 10.3141/2408-02

This paper discusses four public agency approaches to applying alterna-tive technical concepts (ATCs) to construction manager–general contrac-tor (CMGC) project delivery through an analysis of case study projects. The CMGC projects included a slope stabilization project in Michigan, a bridge in Oregon, the urgent, in situ foundation stabilization of a dam in Kansas, and a commuter rail project in Utah. The study results showed that ATCs provide a valuable mechanism to identify the best qualified contractor during the CMGC selection process. ATCs also permit an owner to consider innovative design solutions to constructability prob-lems through the contractor’s early involvement. The addition of ATCs to CMGC procurements permits an owner to accrue all of the savings offered by a contractor’s ATCs because the contractor’s preconstruction services’ contract compensates the contractor for developing the ATCs.

“There is an emerging view in the construction industry that better performance or better value for money can be achieved by integrat-ing teamwork for planning, design and construction of projects” (1). Integration can be achieved in a number of ways. Fundamen-tally, however, in the delivery of a highway construction project, the project’s builder must be brought into the design process in some manner. Design–build project delivery is the most common method used in the highway industry to develop an integrated approach to design and construction (2). Construction manager–general contrac-tor (CMGC) project delivery also furnishes integration by bring-ing the construction contractor into the design process through a preconstruction services contract (3). Another option is to incorpo-rate alternative technical concepts (ATCs) into the procurement, an approach often used on design–build projects but rarely in design–bid–build and thought to be inappropriate for CMGC projects. The purposes of this paper are to dispel misunderstanding about the use of ATCs in CMGC contracts and to demonstrate how four public agencies successfully included ATCs and CMGC in their projects and accrued tangible cost and time benefits as a direct result.

Background

The proliferation of alternative project delivery methods to deliver transportation and infrastructure projects has been driven by the urgent need to rapidly renew the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure.

Specifically, state departments of transportation (DOTs) are using design–build, CMGC (also called construction manager at risk) and at times selection contracts on the basis of design–build qualifica-tions to take advantage of the design and construction industry’s ideas for alternative design and construction solutions to highway projects. FHWA initiated its Every Day Counts program in 2010. Victor Mendez, the FHWA Administrator, described the program as follows: [“Every Day Counts] is designed to identify and deploy inno-vation aimed at shortening project delivery, enhancing the safety of our roadways, and protecting the environment. These goals are worth pursuing for their own sake, [b]ut in challenging times, it’s imperative we pursue better, faster, and smarter ways of doing business” (4).

CMGC project delivery and ATCs are official Every Day Counts initiatives (4). The solicitation of ATCs as a part of the preaward CMGC procurement process is a proven method to generate innova-tive solutions for complex design and construction problems on a wide range of projects. CMGC and ATCs constitute a smarter way of doing business by bringing the collective experience and creativity of all project stakeholders to bear on a given project at the earliest possible opportunity.

cMgc concepts

The NCHRP 10-85 project developed a guidebook on how to imple-ment CMGC contracting for typical DOT construction projects (5). The project found that CMGC projects are characterized by a con-tract between an owner and a construction manager, who eventu-ally assumes the risk for the final cost and time of construction as the general contractor. In this arrangement, the owner authorizes the construction manager to offer input during project design. The owner either completes the design with its own design assets or outsources the design work to a consultant. In general, the contractor is chosen on a best-value basis through a request for proposal (RFP) process, or else a qualifications-based selection is made through a request for qualifications process. CMGC project delivery involves two con-tracts. The first is for preconstruction services during design, and the second is for the construction itself.

Figure 1 shows the contractual relationships between the three parties. There is a contractual coordination requirement between the CMGC contractor and the designer. This link differentiates CMGC project delivery from design–bid–build project delivery in that the design contract must be modified to require the designer to collabo-rate with the CMGC contractor during design. If an agency chooses to use in-house design assets, it must develop an internal mechanism that holds agency design staff to a high level of responsibility for the design schedule. The agency must also train to ensure that agency design staff

Applying Alternative Technical Concepts to Construction Manager–General Contractor Project Delivery

Douglas D. Gransberg

Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, 494 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50010. [email protected].

Gransberg 11

members understand the relationship that they must maintain with the CMGC contractor to permit the benefits that potentially could accrue through this project delivery method to actually accrue.

ATCs Defined

FHWA defines ATCs as follows:

suggested changes submitted by proposing teams to the contracting agency’s supplied basic configurations, project scope, design or con-struction criteria. These proposed changes provide a solution that is equal or better to the requirements in the Request for Proposal docu-ment. If the ATC concept is acceptable to the contracting agency, the concept may be incorporated as part of the proposing teams technical and price submittal. ATCs provide flexibility to the proposers in order to enhance innovation and achieve efficiency. (6)

Federal regulation 23 CFR Part 636.209(b) states that DOTs “may allow proposers to submit alternative technical concepts in their proposals as long as these alternative concepts do not conflict with criteria agreed upon in the environmental decision making process. Alternative technical concept proposals may supplement, but not substitute for base proposals that respond to the RFP requirements.”

Thus ATCs are measured against a baseline design scope of work, and, to be compliant with the regulation, proposers submit a proposal for the baseline design as well as the design as modified by approved ATCs. In design–bid–build, the baseline design is complete and must be altered to achieve benefits from an ATC. In design–build, the baseline design has been established through the preliminary design done to define the design–build project’s scope of work in the RFP. In this case, deviations from the baseline design and its associated criteria must be reviewed and approved before the design–build contract can be awarded. A number of states have requested pro-grammatic waivers through FHWA’s Special Experimental Program 14 (SEP-14). The Washington State DOT, Olympia, cited the need to “avoid unnecessary costs and diversion of resources required for proposers to advance a base design that will ultimately not be used” as justification in their waiver application (7).

Figure 2 shows how ATCs are incorporated into each of the project delivery methods. Of specific interest is the point at which industry competitors can offer their suggestions for innovation. The striking difference in the figure is how early the agency gets ATC input when it uses CMGC project delivery. This early input results because the competing contractors can be evaluated for their potential to add innovative alternatives to a given project. The agency does not need

to review and approve each ATC before the selection of the winning contractor is made. CMGC and design–build, qualifications-based selection uses a two-step or two-part contract (i.e., preconstruction services followed by the actual construction contract). Thus there is no need to conduct technical reviews of possible ATCs submitted during the CMGC selection process, because there is no baseline design. The CMGC contractor works with the designer-of-record through its preconstruction services contract to fully develop its innovative technical concepts. The design progresses without the need to lose expended baseline design effort if design criteria are changed to achieve ATC benefits. This process leads to the conclu-sion that implementation of ATCs on CMGC projects is more cost-effective than in design–bid–build or design–build projects, because the ATCs can be incorporated directly into the final design without the loss of resources expended on the baseline design.

MeThoDology

The case study projects analyzed in this paper were drawn from case studies completed during three previous TRB projects: TCRP G-08 (3), NCHRP 10-85 (5), and NCHRP Synthesis 429 (8). The case study method described by Yin furnished a rigorous methodol-ogy for collecting the data from the case study projects in all three TRB projects (9). Yin maintains that planning the process of access-ing and collecting data is essential preparation for efficiently and accurately collecting cogent information. Yin also maintains that it is equally important to carefully select cases that can be com-pared directly with one another and also offer cross-sectional diver-sity. The selected sample fulfilled this requirement because there were examples from federal, state, and local agencies. Each project demonstrated a different aspect of ATC application to the CMGC process.

Although the cases covered the U.S. agency spectrum, it was “important that the participant pool remain relatively small” (10). Although fewer cases can sometimes lead to unsubstantiated research conclusions on the basis of the probability of atypical case selections, a relatively small pool provides a better opportunity to examine each case in detail without the process becoming too cumbersome. The information gleaned from this study’s case study projects was coupled with information collected in the NCHRP 10-85 survey and the literature review (5) to validate any conclusion drawn from the case studies. Case study information was gathered by face-to-face and telephonic interviews. Thus it was possible to collect historical information. More important, it was possible to detect the rationales behind key project delivery and procurement process decisions as well as explanations for anomalies in the data. The remainder of the paper details the case studies.

CAse sTuDies

The projects shown in Table 1 provide four examples of how ATCs can be integrated into a major project delivered through a CMGC. The use of CMGC involves the award to the winning contractor of two contracts: preconstruction services and construction (2). These contracts effectively split the ATC proposal, evaluation, and approval process, and they shift the proposal of potential ATCs to the CMGC contractor selection process. There each proposed ATC is used as a criterion to gauge innovation and often included in the scoring scheme. An owner can request ATCs as part of the contractor’s proposal and thus evaluate the potential impact to project success

FIGURE 1 CMGC contract structure.

12 Transportation Research Record 2408

FIGURE 2 ATC submittal period in each project delivery method (RFQ request for qualifications).

TABLE 1 Case Study Project Summary

Agency

Case Study Project [engineer’s estimate/ final award value ($ millions)]

Construction Type (location)

Solicitation Type (selection) Major ATC

Savings [cost ($ millions)/time]

Michigan DOT

Michigan Route 222 Slope Stabilization (9.3/8.8)

Geotechnical repair to road fill (Allegan, Mich.)

RFQ (QBS)

Eliminate right-of-way acquisition by using barge-mounted crane. Replace micropiles with soldier piles in retaining wall.

0.5/1 month

Multnomah County, Ore.

Sellwood Bridge (165/159)

Bridge replacement (Portland, Ore.)

RFP (BV)

Replace building new bridge ½ at a time to jacking existing bridge 90 ft to temporary piers and use for detour. Build new bridge in place on existing piers.

6.0/12 months

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Tuttle Creek Dam (197/122)

Dam in-situ stabilization (Manhattan, Kans.)

RFP (BV)

Replaced conventional soil stabilization with a newly developed jet grouting system.

75/24 months

Utah Transit Agency

Weber County Commuter Rail (250/241)

Commuter rail extension (Ogden, Utah)

RFP (BV)

Replaced a large fly-over bridge with two short bridges and three fills.

9/6 months

Note: Mich. = Michigan; QBS = qualifications-based selection; Ore. = Oregon; BV = best value; Kans. = Kansas.

Gransberg 13

without the need to expend a great deal of design effort. The award of the preconstruction services contract does not fix the final con-struction price and does not create any design commitments on either party. This process mirrors the initial, confidential, one-on-one meetings used in the Minnesota DOT, Saint Paul, design–build and the Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, design–bid–build ATC pro-cesses (11, 12). In both cases, contractors are allowed to discuss the viability of potential ATCs and receive the owner’s feedback before they invest the time and effort to fully develop their design details for formal submission for review and approval.

In CMGC, the actual ATC technical evaluation and approval pro-cess is conducted after award during preconstruction, often under the guise of contractor constructability or value analysis reviews (5). The ATC process thus is inherent to CMGC project delivery and may not be visible as a separate, distinct activity in project solicitation documents. For example, in the Sellwood Bridge case, competing contractors were asked to submit innovative ideas with their price and qualifications proposals. The winning contractor further developed the shoofly bridge ATC collaboratively with the owner and the designer-of-record during preconstruction (the case is described further in this paper).

Each case illustrates the value of moving detailed ATC design review and evaluation to a point after the contractor has been selected. If each of the following cases had been delivered with the use of design–bid–build or design–build, the agency and the contractor would have invested a significant amount of time, effort, and expense to both preparing and evaluating the ATCs. In an interview about the Sellwood Bridge case, the contractor indicated that it would not have offered the shoofly bridge as an ATC because of the expense and, more important, the time required to develop it to a point at which the ATC could have been evaluated properly by the owner before a design–build contract award. CMGC allowed the owner, design con-sultant, and contractor to explore the viability of the concept before they committed to any incorporation of the ATC in the final design. The use of a CMGC also avoided the lost design effort that would have been expended during design–build RFP preparation to fully express the baseline design’s scope. NCHRP Synthesis 455 provides a detailed description of each case (13).

Michigan route 222 Project

Scope

The Kalamazoo River was undermining the slope of the riverbank that supports Michigan Route 222; this erosion resulted in a slope failure that produced cracks in the road and threatened the road’s global stability. In its request for qualifications, the Michigan DOT, Lansing, defined the scope of the M-222 slope stabilization project (14) to include the following:

• Protect M-222 in a cost-effective manner by stabilizing the slope between M-222 and the Kalamazoo River and

• Perform ancillary work.

Procurement

Because the work required was urgent to prevent further damage to the highway embankment, the Michigan DOT chose a request with a qualifications-based selection. Its qualifications package asked for the typical information on personnel and experience as well as

plans for preconstruction and construction services that permitted the competitors to suggest alternative approaches.

ATC Evaluation Process

No formal ATC analysis process was required, because construction pricing was not required until after the first opinion on the construction cost was submitted at 60% design. Thus the evaluation consisted only of allocating 300 of 1,000 possible points to the competing contractors’ proposed preconstruction and construction plans.

ATC Scope

The winning contractor proposed to replace micropiles with soldier piles to retain the 25-ft wall that supported the unstable embank-ment. The soldier piles were procured 3 months in advance of the completion of the design; this advance procurement prevented potential fabrication delays and provided a cost saving. In addition, the project’s baseline design contemplated the use of cranes posi-tioned on land, which would provide access to the toe of the slope from above. The contractor proposed to enhance constructability and eliminate the need for a temporary right-of-way purchase by using a barge-mounted crane on the river that could be moved closer to the cofferdam directly below the toe of the slope. This option pro-vided easier access to the slope and a cost saving because it reduced the size of the crane required.

Summary

The project’s success was the result of the high level of collaboration achieved by all of the project’s stakeholders and their willingness to work together through new issues. Scheduled risk assessment meet-ings between the designer, owner, and contractor brought the project team together and provided an opportunity to exchange ideas and resolve issues. The contractor’s construction input during design added value to the project and gave the Michigan DOT an increased level of project control. This input resulted in reduced risk to all parties and to cost and time savings.

sellwood Bridge Project

Scope Summary

The existing 84-year-old, two-lane bridge in Portland, Oregon, was deteriorating in the reinforced concrete deck girder approach spans and the concrete deck over the steel truss. The scope of the project included the following (15):

• Demolish existing 1,100-ft-long bridge;• Construct a new steel-arch deck bridge on the current align-

ment, widened 15 ft to the south, to allow for continuous traffic flow during construction (the baseline design changed by the ATC); and

• Perform ancillary work.

Procurement

Multnomah County, Oregon, chose to deliver the project with a CMGC after it discovered that the project engineer’s estimate had


exceeded the amount of available funding. This situation created the need to phase in the construction to coincide with the financ-ing as it became available. A primary benefit ascribed to CMGC project delivery is its capability to support phased construction (2), and the county felt that this approach would allow work to progress as planned while the necessary additional financing, approximately $5 million, was obtained through a bond issue (5).

Competitors submitted qualifications, proposed preconstruction and construction management fees, a preliminary schedule, and other administrative data in their responses to the project RFP. An interview process was used in which the contenders gave a formal presentation that included corporate qualification and past projects, the qualifica-tions and experience of key CMGC personnel, project-specific issues, innovative ideas (potential ATCs), and preconstruction services components. During their interviews, the contenders were asked to respond to a list of questions specific to the proposal and also to answer some standard questions. The winner was identified with a direct point scoring in weighted categories published in the RFP.


Because the project was delivered with a CMGC, no formal ATC analysis process was required. The construction pricing affected by the ATC was not required to be locked down until much later in the design process. The evaluation process was greatly simplified and consisted of scoring a given contractor’s demonstrated ability to innovate in a manner that could accrue benefits to the owner.

ATC Scope

The scope of the project was to repurpose the old bridge as a shoofly bridge and to provide a full-scale detour for traffic during construc-tion. The detour was accomplished by jacking the 1,100-ft-long, 3,400 ton existing bridge 90 ft up on to temporary piers. As a result, the need to temporarily widen the new structure for maintenance of traffic during construction was eliminated. Temporary approaches and connections to existing traffic lanes were then constructed to support the use of the old bridge during construction of the new bridge. The benefits of the ATC were described as follows:

The shoofly is felt to offer a number of benefits when compared to the staged construction. It could reduce construction duration by up to 12 months and could reduce costs by $5 to $10 million. Because it would separate traffic from the construction areas, it would be safer for workers and travelers. The method allows a less redundant de-sign, preferred by the architect for improving the bridge appearance. Shoofly also requires less temporary work, construction time, and time spent in the water. Less than four in-water work windows would be anticipated for construction. (12)

The proposed shoofly ATC was fully developed and found to result in a $6 million cost savings and a 12-month time savings, which eliminated the need to secure additional bond funding as well as the need to stage the construction as contemplated previously (2).

Summary

The project demonstrated the value of early contractor design input through the ATC process. In this case, the innovative approach por-tion of the interview process was the mechanism whereby potential

ATCs were first considered. Because the owner did not force the con-tractor to commit to a price before the first contract was awarded, CMGC could furnish an avenue to fully consider possible ATCs without the pressure of the letting schedule deadlines. CMGC also permitted design liability to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the designer-of-record, who had privity of contract with the agency (16).

Tuttle creek dam Project

Scope Summary

The Tuttle Creek Dam Safety Assurance Project in the Flint Hills region of northeast Kansas was the largest ground modification project on an active dam ever performed. The project was neces-sitated by the discovery that the dam was founded on soils that were potentially liquefiable. A seismic analysis of the existing dam indi-cated that it would likely fail if subjected to a relatively minor seis-mic event. The scope included the construction of cement bentonite slurry walls to stabilize the downstream foundation as well as other supporting features of work.

Procurement

The project was originally slated to be delivered through the use of design–bid–build with in-house designers to prepare the con-struction documents. An Early Contractor Involvement contract, a hybrid CMGC used by U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), was advertised once USACE realized that the “project was so com-plex that it would benefit from having real time construction con-tractor feedback as the design progressed” (17). In the RFP, the agency included the following:

• Description of scope of work,• Preliminary plans and specifications,• Construction testing matrix, and• Quality management roles and responsibilities.

A key part of each contractor’s proposal was a narrative that described “means and methods for success.” This portion pro-vided competitors the opportunity to propose conceptual ATCs and explain the anticipated benefits of each one. An interview process also was used as part of the contractor selection process. During their interviews, the contenders each gave a formal presentation that included their corporate qualifications and past projects, the qualifi-cations and experience of key contractor personnel, project-specific issues, innovative means and methods, ATCs, and preconstruction services components.


Because this project required the contractor to work directly with the in-house design team, the ATC evaluation process was less formal than those found in typical design–build projects. Nevertheless, the agency constituted a design check advisory panel, made up of geo-technical specialty consultants whose responsibilities were to check compliance with a new performance specification proposed in the ATC. The specification was developed originally for jet grouting technology, which never had been used for the project’s required application. The evaluation included full-scale destructive testing of

Gransberg 15

jet grouting methodology to validate production and performance. Ultimately, the project validated the jet grouting methodology for project-specific applications. The new technology was found to be so successful by subsequent seismic modeling that it allowed USACE to eliminate several baseline features of work as no longer neces-sary. The seismic upgrade was completed 2 years ahead of its planned completion with an approximately 30% savings on cost.

ATC Scope

The winning contractor proposed to take a technology that had shown promise on a smaller scale and expand it to the scale required for this project, something that had never been attempted. The quasi-emergency nature of the project led USACE to agree to further develop the concept, because it promised an anticipated sav-ings in construction time of more than 1 year. Before construction started, the contractor was awarded a small contract to conduct full-scale field testing of the proposed jet grouting technology as well as the original deep soil mixing and slurry wall design. The test was part of the ATC evaluation process. The successful testing allowed the construction to proceed as proposed and ultimately resulted in a 2-year schedule savings (2).

Summary

The project’s use of ATCs combined with a CMGC-like project delivery method permitted this urgent project to move forward without the delays in the procurement process found in design–bid–build and design–build in which ATCs required evaluation and approval before the construction contract award (2). The full-scale testing of a new technology could have been conducted only in the CMGC procurement environment. The amount of effort and expense that went into the ATC evaluation process was justified by the potential emergency and vindicated by the savings in time and money. In addition, USACE and the rest of the industry now have a new, field-proven tool for deep soil stabilization. This case probably best illustrates the fundamental reason to include ATCs in the pro-curement process: to inspire the construction industry to innovate in a manner that benefits all project stakeholders.

Weber county commuter rail

Scope

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) alignment begins in downtown Salt Lake City at the Intermodal Hub and extends north along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Davis and Weber Counties, passes on new, elevated structures over the Ogden Yard, and continues north of Union Station in Ogden to Pleasant View. Three freight sidings from the railroad’s mainline track crossed the commuter rail tracks. Grade crossings and grade-crossing protec-tive devices for the commuter rail line were being constructed or reconstructed as needed. The Weber County Commuter Rail project scope included the following:

• Add 44 mi of new rail guideway, with single tracks and with sec-tions of double tracks at key locations to provide bypass capability, and

• Create eight stations, including the Intermodal Hub in Salt Lake City and park-and-ride structures (3).

Procurement

The project’s alignment included sharing and crossing railroad right-of-way as it passed through 10 communities. In addition, util-ity relocations had to be coordinated with the typical entities as well as with the railroad. UTA selected CMGC project delivery primarily because of the large number of third-party stakeholders involved in this project.


UTA solicited ATCs, called innovative approaches to project execu-tion, in its RFP. The competing contractors were asked to describe at least one ATC during the interview process and demonstrate how it would affect the project’s schedule and risk profile. Because this was a CMGC project and the winning contractor would partici-pate in the design process, there was no need to approve or dis-approve potential ATCs before the preconstruction services contract was awarded (2). Thus the formal ATC evaluation process con-sisted merely of scoring the innovative approaches factor for each contractor.

ATC Scope

The original design called for a large (1/2 mi-long) flyover bridge to carry the guideway from one side of the right-of-way, over the Ogden rail yard, to the other side of the right-of-way. The CMGC contractor proposed to replace the single bridge with three fills and two short bridges. To be able to implement the ATC, the con-tractor negotiated a right-of-way swap with the railroad. As part of the ATC, it also negotiated an agreement with the municipali-ties through which the project ran to waive individual permits for any improvements made on the final right-of-way, which resulted in expedited fund approval from the Federal Transit Agency. The combination of bridge replacement and the permit agreement led to project completion 6 months’ early. Because this project gener-ated revenue, the early completion translated into a large increase in net revenue for UTA, which was not included in the savings.

Summary

UTA was able to complete this project 6 months ahead of schedule and within budget (3). The authority believed that the use of CMGC project delivery, and especially the early contractor involvement in the design process through ATCs, was largely responsible for project success. The contractor first proposed and then developed an ATC of a large flyover bridge that crossed the railroad yard. The basis of the savings was a right-of-way swap between the railroad and UTA that allowed the flyover to be reduced to two small bridges on three fills.

conclusions

An analysis of the case studies led to several conclusions. First, CMGC project delivery simplified the ATC evaluation process. Because construction pricing was not fixed until after the CMGC contractor was selected, the total number of ATCs that required extensive technical evaluation was reduced, so that resources could


be focused on those that had the highest benefit. The result was time saved by the agency and the contractor during procurement. In addition, implementation of ATCs on CMGC projects eliminated the need to expend time and money on the baseline design required in design–bid–build or design–build, because the ATCs could be incorporated directly into the final design during preconstruction. Because the contractor was not required to commit to a price before the award of the preconstruction services contract, CMGC furnished an avenue to fully consider possible ATCs without the pressure of the letting schedule deadlines and preserved the designer-of-record’s liability for the performance of the design through its privity of the design contract directly with the agency.

CMGC project delivery also provided an opportunity to manage ATC design and performance risk by requiring full-scale testing of the ATC on the project itself before approval. In design–bid–build or design–build, the ATC is approved before the contractors’ bids are submitted. To impose a field testing condition before award could create an unacceptable delay in the procurement schedule. To impose one as a postaward condition would increase the risk profile to the point that the contingency to cover the risk could potentially eliminate the time and cost savings associated with the ATC.

One more conclusion was implied rather than explicitly supported. The Missouri DOT described its design–bid–build ATC process as follows: “In the broadest sense, ATCs are similar to value engineer-ing, but are made a part of the bid proposal before contract award” (18). In a CMGC project delivery, the owner pays the contractor to conduct value engineering during preconstruction and receives the total value of any savings through the ATC process rather than a proportional share (2, 3). In each of the case studies presented in this paper, the agency had the opportunity to explore a variety of ATCs in an atmosphere in which the focus was not on minimizing cost but rather on maximizing both time and cost savings while ensuring the long-term quality of the constructed product. This environment was possible because the CMGC project contractor’s preconstruction services fee compensated it for the effort expended to develop what would be postaward value engineering change proposals in design–bid–build and a fully developed alternative design in the proposal for a design–build project. This environment greatly facilitated the level of integration achieved during design for the CMGC project and provided benefits to all involved (19).

acknoWledgMenTs

The author acknowledges the support provided by the TRB NCHRP Synthesis program and the assistance of Jo Allen Gause and Ghada Gad.

references

1. Forgues, D., and L. Koskela. Can Procurement Affect Design Perfor-mance? Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2008, pp. 130–142.

2. West, N., D. D. Gransberg, and J. McMinimee. Effective Tools for Projects Delivered by the Construction Manager–General Contractor Method. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-tion Research Board, No. 2268, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 33–39.

3. Touran, A., D. D. Gransberg, K. R. Molenaar, and K. Ghavamifar. Decision Support System for Project Delivery Methods. In Transporta-tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2111, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 148–157.

4. Mendez, V. Every Day Counts: Innovation Initiative. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010, pp. 1–2.

5. Schierholz, J., D. D. Gransberg, and J. McMinimee. Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Construction Manager/General Con-tractor Project Delivery: The View from the Field. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.

6. Construction Program Guide, 2012. FHWA, U.S. Department of Trans-portation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/atc.cfm.

7. Carpenter, J. Annual Report on Alternate Technical Concept Program-matic Waiver. SEP-14 Progress Report. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, 2012.

8. Gransberg, D. D., and M. C. Loulakis. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 429: Geotechnical Information Practices in Design–Build Projects. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.

9. Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publica-tions, Beverly Hills, Calif., 1994.

10. Colorado State University. Conducting Case Studies, 2008. http://writing. colostate.edu/guides/research/casestudy/pop2c.cfm. Accessed July 14, 2013.

11. Alternate Technical Concept Process for the MRB Missouri I-70 Inter-change Project J6U1086. Missouri Department of Transportation, Jack-son City, August 27, 2010. http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents/MRBMoInterchangeATCConcept9-27-10.pdf.

12. Design-Build Manual. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, 2012. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/documents/online/DBv12.htm#_Toc305159425. Accessed May 19, 2012.

13. Gransberg, D. D., M. C. Loulakis, and G. M. Gad. NCHRP Synthesis 455: Alternative Technical Concepts for Contract Delivery Methods. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014.

14. Request for Qualifications, M-222 Slope Stability Project at the Kalam-azoo River at the City of Allegan. Michigan Department of Transporta-tion, Lansing, March 3, 2011, pp. 1–27.

15. Meeting 1 Summary. Multnomah County Community Advisory Com-mittee, Portland, Ore., April 11, 2011, pp. 7–10.

16. Shane, J. S., and D. D. Gransberg. Coordination of Design Contract with Construction Manager-at-Risk Preconstruction Service Contract. In Trans-portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2151, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 55–59.

17. Hoffman, B., J. Dillon, B. Kreienheder, D. Manka, and A. Chirpich. Early Contractor Involvement for Civil Works. Presented at Industry Workshop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, La., 2009.

18. Hitt, R. Alternative Technical Concepts and Design-Bid-Build. Pre-sented at FHWA Every Day Counts Summit, Kansas City, Mo., 2012.

19. McMinimee, J. C., S. Schaftlin, T. R. Warne, S. S. Detmer, M. C. Lester, G. F. Mroczka, D. B. Nichols, J. N. Taylor, A. T. Teikari, and C. Yew. NCHRP Project 20-68A: Best Practices in Project Delivery Management. Scan Team Report 07-01. Arora and Associates, P.C., Lawrenceville, N.J., 2009.

The Project Delivery Methods Committee peer-reviewed this paper.

applying alternative technical concepts to construction ...€¦ · project delivery from...

Documents