Project Background
Time was nearly up. In 1998, Congress had permitted the District of Columbia to convert an interstate project into a series of projects including some to improve local roadways. The original project had been killed at the contract approval stage by ardent resident opposition. It was this last batch of projects, roughly $75 million in all, that needed to be obligated by the end of June, 2002, or the money would expire.
DC had suffered greatly in the mid-90s. A near total financial collapse had led the city to the point where it could no longer match its annual federal aid highway formula distributions (the District is treated as a state for the purposes of federal highway funding). The city’s inability to meet its basic commitments showed in the quality of its roadways and infrastructure — most notably its local neighborhood roadways (700 miles in all) on which no federal funds could be used. Engineered by the District’s non-voting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Barney Circle Re-Direct Project (its name taken from the ill-fated freeway that was scrapped and provided the funds) would assist the District in enhancing roadway maintenance, improve critical infrastructure, and renew neighborhood streets and roadways.
Like the roadways themselves, the District’s transportation agency — the Division of Transportation in the Department of Public Works — had also fallen on hard times. Staff had been reduced to less than 300, equipment and training were unaffordable luxuries, and work was piling up with no clear strategy for addressing it. With the election of Anthony A. Williams as Mayor in 1998, things began to change. In early 2000, Mayor Williams began the process to separate the Division of Transportation from the Department of Public Works, and recreate a separate, stand-alone, accountable Department of Transportation (which had been in existence until 1987).
Among the most serious problems facing the Department was the potential loss of the $75 million in local road improvements funds. (The Department’s new Director, Dan Tangherlini, affectionately referred to it as one of the “flaming sticks of dynamite” he had been handed upon walking in the door.) This would be an unacceptable loss, both to the city which desperately needed these investments and to the Mayor who was working hard to rebuild the city’s reputation on Capitol Hill and Wall Street as a safe bet and a reasonable risk. With so much at stake, the traditional approach of design-bid-build would no longer work.
Director Tangherlini called together key members of the nascent department’s staff and, working together, chose to reconfigure the contracts and try something new, a design-build project. The decision was based as much on the goal of showing that they had tried as on the hope of success. In addition, by choosing a design-build approach, the department could quickly receive full credit for obligating all the funds rather than waiting for the designs to be completed to seek the subsequent obligation for construction.
The team knew that design-build projects were not new, but they also realized that they had not done any for transportation infrastructure work in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, they knew that few, if any, had used design-build for the types of projects they were proposing. In DDOT’s case, the projects were the basic bread-and-butter of a highway agency — roadway repavings, reconstructions, and upgrades, scattered through two of the eight wards of the city. Their logic, though, was that these were projects that had very little in the way of substantive design work and could benefit the most from close coordination between designer and builder.
The District’s Federal Highway Division Office, led by Division Administrator Gary Henderson, was willing to give the experiment a try. They too wanted this money obligated and the projects under way, and design-build seemed a good way to clear several administrative hurdles quickly. Further, knowing that the District’s procurement office was unfamiliar with a two-part procurement process, DDOT and the Federal Highway Administration chose to have the FHWA’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division provide the contracting support and day-to-day program administration (EFLHD works with DDOT under a unique cooperative agreement).
Based on the qualification, three teams were short-listed for the project. Selection was made based on the team with best value, 50 percent on cost and 50 percent on technical and management approach. EFLHD was the project administrator for the design-build contract, which was awarded in 2002 to the joint venture of Parsons Transportation Group, Professional Corporation, and Fort Myer Construction Corporation (Parsons/FMCC). Work began in May 2002.
Elements of Design-Build Contract
The contact was developed to provide comprehensive design and construction services throughout Wards 3 and 4. It included the design and construction of 108 local streets that totaled about 17 miles of urban roadway. In developing the scope, general improvement classifications were developed for the roadways to aid in the estimation of 108 individual improvement projects. This contractual arrangement allowed FHWA, DDOT, and the project team to develop designs that were flexible to their individual setting but still satisfied general terms under the master contract conditions. Most importantly, these designs were able to address local Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner (ANC) and resident concerns and obtain approval and permits from various approving agencies prior to commencing any construction.
The original proposed scope of work included upgrading of 24 roadway locations, reconstruction at 25 loca-tions, and the resurfacing of 59 loca-tions. Typical work elements were developed for each of these improvement classifications as follows:
Roadway Upgrades — A typical roadway upgrading included the widening of roadways, the complete removal of existing pavement, and placement of new roadway section, curbs, and gutters, wheelchair/bicycle ramps, and sidewalk. The existing storm drain system received major upgrading to meet the latest DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) requirements. Separations of the combined sewer system were required at locations served through the existing system. Typically, roads under this category had lower quality features such as asphalt curb or no curb; very poor or no adequate pavement section; substandard storm drain system, combined sewer system or no storm drain system; surface utility structures encroaching or barely outside of the travel way; no adequate street light system; mature/healthy trees growing into the roadway; and/or a roadway less than required legally recorded roadway distribution dimensions in width.
Roadway Reconstruction — This type of work is similar to the roadway upgrade except that no widening was needed, since the roadways were constructed to appropriate legally recorded Roadway Distribution Widths.
Roadway Resurfacing — This type of work generally included milling and overlaying the roadway surface, base repair, spot repairs of curbs and gutters, and sidewalk enhancements. These projects also included some storm drain system improvements such as adding capacity to the reconstructed existing catch basins.
All categories also included other improvements such as streetlight and landscaping improvements, pavement markings, new signs, and upgrading to break-away traffic type hydrants for vehicular and pedestrian safety. On selected streets this project also included replacement of old water main and lead water service connections. The total design and construction value of this contract was $37 million. The contract payment terms specified that the 108 sites be bid as individual lump sum amounts by site with eight additional unit price items.
Contract Process and Results
The entire contract was broken down into six individual construction groups, based on the geographic locations. The work was further balanced among each group so that work could start alternatively between two Wards. Combining the designer’s and the contractor’s understanding of the project scope of work, extensive local knowledge and roadway experience, and using the Primavera/SureTrak software, the joint venture team prepared the overall design and construction schedule. This approach resulted in a cohesive, smoothly flowing production schedule for executing the work in an order of precedence that took into consideration neighborhood impact, traffic flow, interruptions to public transportation, equally spaced work within two wards, and any other issues that the local government knew were important to its constituents. Emphasis was placed on having specialized work available during periods that allowed it to be accomplished, such as asphalt placement in non-winter months, excavation during non-rainy seasons, and tree planting during the planting seasons.
As the design and construction progressed, the schedule was updated and submitted to the client (EFLHD) and the owner (DDOT) on a monthly basis. The project progress for the work that was completed and for the remaining work was discussed during the monthly task force meeting. A project web site (www.dcroadways ward3and4.com) was developed and updated accordingly to provide most updated scheduled work information to residents and other concerned agencies.
Outcome
The use of the fast-track design-build delivery methodology resulted in significant schedule benefits for the project. The original contract called for a duration of 28 months; the project was substantially completed in 27 months. However, unforeseen issues, beyond the control of the design-build team, added time to the original schedule – meaning that the design-build team finished ahead of both the original and the substantially revised schedule. In fact, the flexibility incorporated into the contract allowed the District to address improvement needs for WASA as part of the waterline and lead service connection replacement work and to add, delete, and extend limit of work on few locations.
In addition to the unique delivery process used for this project, several other elements combined to result in unanimous success for EFLHD, DDOT, the communities, and the design-build team. Some of the lessons learned in applying this design-build methodology are presented in the following analysis.
Lessons Learned
Based upon DDOT’s experiences on the design-build roadways, Wards 3 and 4 project, several key elements made the use of this design-build process a success. This project provides a case study not only for DDOT, but also for other cities, counties, states, and jurisdictions to follow in addressing urban infrastructure initiatives. The lessons learned and presented below show that the design-build process can result in a successful improvement program for urban areas, even when applied to basic or run-of-the-mill projects. Long viewed as a means to address complex projects, design-build has shown itself in this case to be both efficient and effective.
Selecting the Right Design-Build Team is Critical
One of the keys to success is forming the right design-build team. Characteristics that should be present in such a cohesive design-build team include the following:
- The design-build team should have an excellent fit of skills and an understanding of common project goals. A commitment of resources from each company and their key individuals to creating a quality product should be expressed during the selection process. The team must have a common goal to meeting the proposed budget and schedule and demonstrate local knowledge and local commitment to the program.
- The team should demonstrate that it has ample resources to meet an aggressive project schedule and demonstrate that those resources are readily available. It should provide evidence that it can minimize project start-up time and expense.
- The team should have a proven record of cost competitiveness. Both the designer and contractor must be cost competitive. Cost effectiveness is a key component to completing any significant design-build program.
- The team should have an excellent professional relationship between key team members. Since any design-build process will entail a significant amount of coordination among the administrator, the owner, the designer, and the contractor, strong personal relationships assist with resolving difficult issues and will also facilitate the entire process.
- The team should make use of appropriate subconsultants/subcontractors that “fit” and add value to the overall team. The right subconsultants should demonstrate that they will help the team, respond to their needs, and meet schedule requirements.
Make sure that Expertise Matches the Type of Work
Since each urban roadway reconstruction project is unique, it is important that both the designer and contractor components of the team have prior local knowledge and expertise in a variety of reconstruction techniques. The team should provide examples of lessons learned from previous projects and best practices used in other urban infrastructure projects. Beyond demonstrating that they understand the local context and have previous general experience, the design and construction team should illustrate that they can apply lessons learned as necessary when making the numerous judgment calls needed during the bidding, design, and construction phases. To maximize the team’s effectiveness, the design-build project team must create an atmosphere/culture where both designer and contractor are willing and able to share these best practices for the benefit of the team.
DDOT found that the selected team’s prior experience with the District and FHWA, along with local knowledge of potential residential issues and input into the process, and knowledge of local vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns, significantly benefited the process during both the contract procurement and execution stages.
Identify, Mitigate, Assign, and Manage Risk
Risk management is a critical component for the project team. Identifying, mitigating, assigning, and managing risk is the one item that is most directly related to the team’s financial success.
For this effort, the Parsons/FMCC team performed a tremendous up-front effort by walking each of the 108 sites, videotaping critical or unusual sites, and drawing from both the designer’s and contractor’s experiences from the more traditional design-bid-build roadway improvement process. The team used this information as the basis to develop a very detailed scope of work, refine quantities, and calculate competitive unit prices to develop lump sum prices for each site. The thoroughness of this initial effort was a big reason for the project’s success because it allowed DDOT, FHWA, and the project team to:
- Fully understand the scope of work and document with specificity what the team intended to do.
- Identify, mitigate, and assign the vast majority of risk elements in advance of the team selection. (Some of the examples of risk items included quantity fluctuations, changing drainage requirements, and unexpected pavement conditions.)
- Use the initial field work and detailed documentation during both design and construction operations.
As an owner, administrator, designer, or constructor of a project, although it is very important to be diligent during the procurement phase, it is equally important to actively manage risk during the execution phase. At the constructor level, certain judgment calls will need to be made during the course of the project (such as potential tree impacts, existing utilities, existing terrain, profile changes, etc.) which have no perfect solution and require trade-offs in the design process. To make informed decisions, the team must know what the design require-ments are, what the preferred solutions are, and the amount of flexibility and innovation that can and should be used on any given situation.
Require Effective Communication and Coordination
Effective communication and coordination between the project team and the project stakeholders is essential to achieving a successful outcome. FHWA, with input from DDOT, developed a very comprehensive RFQ and RFP during the selection process to ensure that all steps in the process were coordinated. As the administrator and owner, FHWA and DDOT invested in a great level of detail to ensure that the selection process resulted in a team that could successfully complete the project for the District. These early steps taken by both FHWA and the District led to the successful completion throughout the process. Keys to communication success include:
- A mutual understanding of project requirements and genuine respect for the goals of all parties involved. Each team member may define a successful outcome slightly differently. Most jurisdictions acting as owners will define success in terms of schedule, since they experience the most direct accountability to local citizens. The administrator/owner may define success in terms not only of schedule, but also budget compliance and the minimization of management hassles. The project team wants not only to establish a positive working relationship among the team members, but also needs to meet profitability, resource management, and quality controls. It is very important to create open communication between all project team members and to build and reinforce trust amongst the team, so that as problems or concerns arise, they can be dealt with openly and efficiently.
- The coordination plan should acknowledge the interdependency and responsibility for the project schedule. It is ultimately the design-build team’s responsibility to keep the project on schedule. However, due to the limited authority of the project team, there are times the owner/administrator must step up and take action to avoid negative impacts to the project schedule. Owner/administrators can not reasonably push all schedule risk and responsibility to the design-build team because they are not legally able to transfer their authority over other entities, such as utilities.
- Create a vehicle for partnering. For the Wards 3 and 4 improvement program, DDOT and the project team initiated and continued the use of a task force comprised of key EFLHD, DDOT, and Parsons/FMCC staff. All team members met monthly to discuss progress, issues, changes, and actions required to keep the program on track and focused on what was needed to keep productively moving forward. Issues resolved included pending changes in the scope, unique items that required special consideration, tracking of progress, coordination with outside agencies, concerns on designs or construction of particular elements of individual sites, and residential concerns or complaints.
- Effective coordination with utilities and permitting agencies is critical to maintaining the schedule. Much of the risk on this project was pushed to the project team to coordinate with utilities and secure construction permits and approvals. Cooperating agencies can have a big impact if they don’t review and issue permits or move utilities to comply with your schedule. This is where knowing the process and having positive professional relationships can significantly benefit the project team.
All members of the team should engage in positive interaction with residents, as they are the ultimate clients in this process. One of the challenges is to change the common initial perception that designers or contractors do not care about citizen concerns. Residents take any impact to their neighborhood very personally and passionately. The team must demonstrate every time that it cares about citizen concerns, that the team can address their concerns whenever possible, and that the project will definitely benefit everyone. Successful citizen interaction on this project included designs that addressed maintenance of traffic and parking issues in the Glover Park neighborhood, residential drainage impacts on Upton Street, and solving several specific resident issues involving driveways, retaining walls, and trees. The ANCs and affected residents were involved during the design phase and were kept informed by providing real-time construction updates via a dedicated project web site.
Think Like a Team — Not Designer and Contractor
The design-build approach offers some challenges and opportunities in creating a team environment such as:
- Team members should break out of traditional roles of designers and contractors and cast off any “us” versus “them” feelings.
- Team members should embrace being part of a new team environment and interacting continuously.
- Members should put what is best for the team first, not what is best for their company or individual interest.
- Staff should recognize and cherish being open to new and innovative ideas and championing change for the better.
- Staff should be willing to acknowledge each other’s strengths and apply them to come up with something faster and/or better.
- All team members, including the owners and administrators, should develop and commit to the team’s project management plan.
If you can accomplish these communication techniques, it will greatly enhance your design-build projects. As shown in the figure above, success is based on team expertise, team philosophy, risk management and coordination and communications.
Recommendations and Best Management Practices
Based upon DDOT experience on this particular case, we believe design-build delivery is a proven and successful tool to address the needs of maintaining and improving urban roadways. A comparative analysis of the design-build model (based on the Wards 3 and 4 Project) versus a design-bid-build (based on the Wards 7 and 8 Project) model indicates the following:
However, there are some potentially difficult items unique to urban roadway reconstruction projects. To mitigate these items, we offer the following recommendations to both owner/administrators and design-builders considering, preparing or proposing on future design-build urban roadway reconstruction projects:
Put Emphasis on Pricing, Payment Units, and Warranty Clause
Proactively address risk. Risk is the number-one issue to reconcile. If you push all risk to the design-build team, the owner will pay more for this risk assumption. Both sides must understand and mitigate risk. On urban roadway reconstruction, risk can manifest in elements such as unknown base condition, subsurface soil information, buried elements (e.g. utilities not built to code), or delays associated with utilities and cooperating agencies.
Develop a clear and logical basis for payment units. There is no perfect system, but upfront owner/administrator consideration of the payment unit options versus potential outcomes can dramatically improve the potential for success and claim avoidance.
Perform an extensive pre-bid preparation. The project team must do its homework before submitting the bid. The more thorough the upfront work, the better defined the scope of work, the more accurate the bid. You will benefit by creating the framework for your project management plan.
Develop a Change Order Process. There will be changes! Due to the nature of the work, both the owner/administrator and project team must prepare for changes, document and discuss assumptions and expectations, and most importantly be flexible and fair. Examples of typical changes will include changing roadway types (such as resurfacing to reconstruction when an unsuitable base is discovered), adding and deleting streets based upon revised conditions or funding, adding utility work, or dealing with unforeseeable unique residential issues. During this pro-curement process, some of the improvements were covered in line items rather than lump sum estimates. This allowed DDOT and EFLHD some flexibility in responding to change orders. In addition, due to the level of detail developed in the procurement process, the District had already prepared information that could be used as back-up information during the change order process.
Warranty Clause. Based on the life cycle of various roadway elements, it is important to have a warranty clause in the contract for items such as pavement, concrete, signage and pavement markings. This arrangement will allow the administrator/owner to minimize their staff and not micro-manage the contract.
Understand the Importance of Team Selection
Forming the right project team is critical, not just because it is a design-build project, but because of the nature of the work. Team selection and creation are essential to win the project and then be able to effectively perform the work.
- The owner/administrator should initially narrow the field to three or four teams that have the expertise to do the work and have the capabilities and commitment to provide a quality product.
- Both the owner/administrator and the design-build team must possess the desire and the ability to create a strong project team environment.
Develop and Execute a Communication and Coordination Roadmap
The importance of communication and coordination on this type of project can not be overstated. One must develop and execute a plan that helps to communicate internally within the design-build team and with all impacted residences and agencies. Identify the critical scope and schedule items, identify the impacted agencies and residents, formulate a plan to communicate and resolve issues, and understand the push/pull relationship. Commit to positive and effective communication and everyone will mutually benefit in the end.
Conclusion
A single contract of this size with so many locations had not previously been awarded in the District. However the entire project team — the administrator (FHWA), the owner (DDOT), and the design-builder (Parsons/FMCC) worked together as a team for the success of the project. The team was a perfect match for the assignment with ample resources, strengthened by a task force and partnering approach, and guided by proactive management.
FHWA expressed its appreciation for the effort of the Parsons/Ft. Myer Joint Venture team, noting that, “the design, construction and coordination with many local agencies went very smoothly and contributed greatly to the successful completion of this design-build contract.” DDOT also stated, “your team turned a difficult and complicated project turned into a great success for the District, the communities, and the design-build team.”
Dan Tangherlini was appointed director of the new District of Columbia Department of Transportation in November 2002, having served as acting director of the former division of transportation in the Department of Public Works from May 2000. He also represents the District on the Board of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). He may be reached at dan.tangherlini@ dc.gov.
Muhammed S. Khalid, P.E., is program manager for the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), Infrastructure Project Management Administration. Mr. Khalid managed this first major design-build project for DDOT as an owner. He may be reached at muhammed. khalid@dc.gov.
Thomas Topolski, AICP, has 22 years experience managing and participating in a wide range of transportation and urban development projects. He is currently managing the Capital Programs East Region for Parsons Transportation. He may be reached at Thomas.Topolski@parsons.com.
Prakash N. Patel, P.E., the overall project manager for the Parsons Transportation Group/Fort Myer Construction Corporation Joint Venture Team on this first design-build transportation project in the District, heads the Civil Department of Parsons Washington DC Roads and Highway Division Office. His email address is prakash.n.patel @parsons.com.