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.
1 In the 1990s, the general public began insisting that planned highway and bridge projects be completed quicker than possible using the Design-Bid-Build (DBB) construction project delivery system which had dominated the industry since the 1930s. This led state DOTs to look into fast-track methods of construction. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, passed by Congress in 1991, established, among other things, Special Experimental Projects Program 14 (SEP-14). This allowed DOTs, which had previously used state funds for fast-track highway and bridge construction to apply for federal funding for construction projects using the Design-Build (D-B) delivery system. The D-B system has proven to be very effective and popular, with 42 state DOTs and numerous county and municipal transportation agencies now using the system. However, D-B has its downsides. Many Design Professionals (DPs) are uncomfortable being sub- servient to the contractor instead of the owner. Some owners complain about the lack of control over the design process that they experience with D-B. As a result, some contractors denounce attempts by some owners to interfere with the design process. This has, once again, caused public transportation agencies to search for another delivery system that might mitigate or eliminate those concerns while providing many of the advantages of D-B. The Construction-Manager-at-Risk (CMR) delivery system offers a direct contractual relationship between the owner and the DP, which solved both problems. However, CMR did not achieve the popularity of D-B, mainly because contractors did not trust a system that forbade them from performing work themselves, as some agencies preferred, or that forced them to bid against a list of qualified subcontractors for any work that they wanted to self-perform. A solution was offered by the Construction Manager/General Contrac- tor (CM/GC), a system modeled after CMR that allows, or in most cases compels, the CM to self-perform a portion of the work. This mollified the contractor groups and, along with the FHWAâs Every Day Counts (EDC) initiatives, gave CM/GC a boost in popularity among public transportation agencies. Nowadays, D-B and CM/GC are increasingly used to deliver trans- portation projects and, together with DBB, can be considered the indus- tryâs major delivery systems. The nature of D-B and CM/GC contracts especially affects Design Management (DM). In the scope of this research, the researchers have defined DM as the approach used by agencies to organize and oversee the process of designing the trans- portation infrastructure. Under D-B, the design process is led by the selected D-B entity (the Design-Builder) after a D-B contract has been awarded. Depending on the selected DM S u m m a r y Guide for Design Management on Design-Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Projects The purpose of this research is to identify . . . an effective and efficient DM process for fast-track transportation construction projects. . . .
2 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects approach, agencies can assume different levels of involvement. Some agencies strongly rely on performance specifications or on long-term strategic partnerships with D-B entities to maintain a limited involvement. However, other agencies embedded a stronger oversight role for themselves or their consultants. Since several procurement activities affect the shaping of the DM process, they were included in the scope of this study, and the Guidebook provides a discussion on these pre-award activities. Under CM/GC, the researchers found that it is often impossible to completely separate the design process from the construction process, since the two are more closely intertwined and dependent on one another than in any of the three major delivery systems. Therefore, many of the recommendations for organizing DM under CM/GC can be easily considered as actions necessary to implement CM/GC at large. The purpose of this research is to identify or develop a set of practices for the establish- ment and execution of an effective and efficient DM process for fast-track transportation construction projects, specifically those developed using the D-B and CM/GC delivery systems. To this end, the research team has executed telephone interviews with 65 public transportation agencies, done follow-up telephone interviews with, and procured supplemen- tary data from, 18 of those agencies, and finally spent at least 2 days to a week with 9 agencies gathering information for the development of Case Studies on projects or programs using D-B or CM/GC. Among the most important findings is that the D-B and CM/GC programs have found that the easiest way to pay the contractor and please FHWA auditors is to use either straight Unit Price, or a combination of Unit Price and Lump Sum or Unit Price and Cost-reimbursable contracts. D-B The ability to utilize external consultants for staffing is crucial in affecting the approach to DM. Flexible staffing (through the use of external consultants in the appropriate number and with the needed expertise) allows an agency to handle the dynamic design review process in a timely manner. Equally important is allocating for the proper maximum agency review duration; and enough human resources to perform the design package reviews is critical in minimizing issues and delays. Providing the proper level of design in the Request for Proposal (RFP) is critical in obtain- ing effective and innovative proposals. Agencies must provide enough design to clearly convey the project scope, but too much design may hinder Design-Buildersâ capacity to introduce innovations. The success of many D-B projects is based on the level of innovation that Design-Builders provide. Therefore, agencies must establish effective VE-like processes during the pre- and post-contract award phases. Agencies that disclose submitted Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) before contract award or do not allow ATCs may greatly hinder Design-Buildersâ ability and motivation in providing innovations. D-B project success can be strongly affected by the level of integration between contractors and DPs. Thus, agencies must adopt specific strategies to ensure that contractors and DPs are effectively collaborating during the design phase. CM/GC The most important advantage of CM/GC is the innovation possible through the pre- construction services of the contractor as CM. The second biggest advantage of CM/GC is the flexibility it grants the participants, before and during the project, in assigning risk in the
Summary 3 optimum proportions for project success. Everything should be done to retain the CM as early as possible. It is important that the design process enable the team to permit and design the project in small âminiâ phases, and that this process be tailored to begin construction early. It is important to educate DPs and contractors who have never worked on CM/GC projects that the culture of CM/GC is different than DBB or D-B, and to teach them the CM/GC culture. For CM/GC to work, especially early in the life of a program, complete support from upper management is essential, as is the education of the surrounding counties, municipalities, supplier networks, subcontractors/specialty contractors, permitting agencies and utility companies. Constructability Reviews and VE are considered part of the fee the CM gets for preconstruction services.
