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.

10 C H A P T E R 3 3.1 Introduction This research, originally published in 2008, provided an update to the AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement. The current research provides an update to the RFP examples, project documents, and minor language throughout the AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement to make these elements align with progress that has occurred since the first publication. The combination of an updated AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement and the newly created NCHRP Research Report 939: Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods, Volume 1: Design–Build Delivery and Volume 2: Construction Manager–General Contractor Delivery will provide state agencies with all of the necessary information to effectively deliver D-B projects from the procurement stage through project closeout. 3.2 Methodology To update the AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement, the research team performed a review of current state agency D-B RFPs to find examples of more current procurement contract provisions. The relevant RFP content analysis examples that replaced outdated RFP examples are shown in Appendix C. The consultant team, peer review team, and research team reviewed the changes for accuracy and acceptability. The RFP content analysis began with an exploratory search of publicly available RFPs. The research team mined data from all 50 state DOT websites. The team found 150 RFPs from 22 states and issued between the years 2011 and 2016 that were publicly available online. From these 150 RFPs, 96 contract provisions from 12 states were chosen for peer review team analysis. These provisions were selected according to their level of detail and clarity. Provisions were only selected if they were equal to or greater than the quality of the existing AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement contract provisions. In general, the research team found the new contract provisions to be longer and more detailed than the original provisions. This may reflect that agencies better understand what is now needed for an effective provision or that the provisions may have grown in length as they were used on multiple projects. The 96 selected contract provisions from the RFPs were sent in full to the 15 members of the peer review team. Each peer review member was given three to seven categories based, on their expertise and length of the categories. Eleven peer review team members responded, as shown by the following review summary. All categories received at least two reviews and a summary from the reviewers. Reviewed material can be seen in Table 3.1. Update to the AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement

Update to the AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement 11 Each peer review member was asked to grade each contract provision as “average,” “good,” or “excellent” and to provide comments. The research team accumulated the ratings and comments that each provision received and chose which provisions to add to the updated AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement. The summary of proposed provisions can be seen in Table 3.2. These provisions typically received at least one “excellent” grading, and all received an average grade of either “good” or “excellent.” One “Ownership of Documents” Peer Review Team B as ic C on fig ur at io n A lte rn at iv e Te ch ni ca l C on ce pt s B et te rm en ts U til ity R el oc at io n Q ua lit y M an ag em en t D es ig n Su bm itt al , R ev ie w ,a nd A pp ro va l En gi ne er o f R ec or d Tr af fic C on tro l D iff er in g Si te C on di tio ns En vi ro nm en ta l P er m itt in g R ig ht -o f- W ay O rd er o f D oc um en t P re ce de nc e R ef er en ce D oc um en ts O w ne rs hi p of D oc um en ts St ip en d Pr og re ss S ch ed ul e Pr oj ec t A cc ep ta nc e N on co nf or m in g W or k Dave Zanatell X X X X Steve Waddle X X X Mark Rolfe X X X X Edward Hammontree X X X X X David Sadler X X X X Jake Goettle X X X X X Peter Davich X X X X X Lisa Choplin X X X X X X X John Carlson X X X X X James Ernzen X X X X X Bill Hinton X X X X X X Number of Reviews 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 W ar ra nt y X X X 3 Pa ym en t M et ho d X X X X 4 4 4 4 Table 3.1. Contract provisions reviewed by the peer review team. Contract Provisions Number of Provisions Graded Number of Provisions Chosen Basic Configuration 7 3 Alternative Technical Concepts 5 2 Betterment 3 2 Quality Management 5 3 Design Submittal, Review, and Approval 6 3 Engineer of Record 5 2 Differing Site Conditions 5 3 Environmental Permitting 5 3 Right-of-Way 6 2 Utility Relocation 4 2 Order of Document Precedence 6 2 Reference Documents 4 2 Ownership of Documents 3 2 Stipend 6 2 Payment Method 6 3 Progress Schedule 3 2 Project Acceptance 4 3 Nonconforming Work 6 2 Traffic Control 4 2 Warranty 3 2 TOTALS 96 47 Table 3.2. Contract provisions graded and chosen per category.

12 Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods and one “Project Acceptance” contract provision that received an overall grade of “average” were included because of the research team’s detailed review and approval. The research team chose 47 of the 96 provisions to add to the AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement, as seen in Table 3.2. A full summary of the provisions can be seen in Appendix C. 3.3 Summary This research provides an update to the AASHTO Guide for Design–Build Procurement. The research team provided 47 vetted contract provisions used by agencies between 2011 and 2016 to replace the original contract provision examples, all which were published before 2008. At the end of this research project, NCHRP began the process of AASHTO voting on an approval of this update. However, the outcome of the voting and publication was not known when this research report was being written.