Practices for Establishing Contract Completion Dates for Highway Projects (2017)

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.

31 This study examined contract time estimation tools at state transportation agencies (STAs) using a literature review, online survey, and case examples of existing procedures for estimating contract time. This project developed several finds and suggestions for future work in response to the work summarized here. GENERAL FINDINGS The data analyzed in this project offer a number of significant findings related to estimating contract time for STAs: • Most responding STAs reported having a formal procedure for estimating contract time. Sixty-eight percent of responding states indicated that they have a formal, documented process for estimating contract time. Of these STAs, more than half report using a custom developed procedure. In clas- sifying their specific estimation processes the most frequent response was that the tool is “simple” and that the design and selection of the tool was driven primarily by STA personnel rather than outside agency assistance. • The critical path method (CPM) was the most frequently cited method used by STAs to estimate contract time. The most frequent survey responses indicated that a project-specific critical path schedule was used to estimate contract time. Fewer states reported using static production rates. • The most recent development in STA contract time estimation tools involved the use of regression models to estimate contract time. Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio recently developed single variate and multivariate regression models that use cost estimates and selected bid item quantities to estimate contract time. • STAs that used production rates in estimating contract time used a variety of production rates. The most commonly used production rates were static agency-specific production rates that were not frequently updated followed by agency-specific production rates that were frequently adjusted. STAs also reported using generic published production rates and intelligent production rates (e.g., adjusted for location, project scale, etc.). • The most commonly cited factor that affected the setting of contract time was project phasing. This was followed by maintenance of traffic and the time of year that the project was let. • Estimating and setting contract time is a process that involves both design and construction divi- sions. STAs differ in the detailed procedure for establishing contract time but from the survey responses and case examples all responding agencies attempt to integrate both phases of project development in setting contract time. • Only 30% of the responding STAs indicated that they have evaluated the effectiveness of their contract time estimating tools. Thirty-seven percent of respondents were unsure as to the accu- racy of their tools, 33% indicated the accuracy was between +0 and 25%, and 26% indicated that their accuracy was +50–100%. Recent research into the accuracy of two contract time determi- nation tools found the measured accuracy or a variety of projects to be +200%. • Less than half the responding STAs indicated that they have a contract time estimation procedure for Alternative Project Delivery Methods (e.g., design-build or construction management/general contractor). Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported that they use their design-bid-build procedure to estimate contract time for alternative project delivery methods. • The most needed area of improvement for existing contract time estimation procedures is increased feedback and improved communication between agency divisions. STAs noted that the input chapter five CONCLUSIONS

32 of experienced construction personnel was required for accurate contract time estimates. Other areas mentioned for improvement included improved accuracy, adaptability to alternative delivery methods, and increased automation. FUTURE WORK Based on the results of this study, the following suggestions for future work in this area are offered: • A framework for strategically applying various contract time estimate techniques and procedures according to project characteristics and risks. This knowledge would help improve the estimation of contract time by aligning the most effective procedure with each step of the project development process. • Methods for the evaluation and improvement of the accuracy of contract time estimate techniques and the inclusion of a feedback loop from construction to design regarding the accuracy and les- sons learned of the contract time estimates after project completion. By closing the feedback loop between contract time and project duration STAs can improve on-time delivery of projects and improve project development efficiencies. • Techniques for estimating contract time for alternative project delivery methods. Since alternative project delivery methods can alter stakeholder goals, objectives, and behaviors when compared with traditional design-bid-build methods, existing contract time tools may not be suitable for projects utilizing alternative project delivery methods.