DBIA traditionally focuses on the standard design-build method, but recognizes that some projects may benefit from an alternative integrated project delivery method in order to achieve a high performance project.
Maine Department of Transportation pioneered a new integrated project delivery method now referred to as “owner-facilitated design-build” for their largest project to date and first cable-stayed bridge. Penobscot Narrows Bridge & Observatory, near Bucksport, ME, opened to traffic on December 30, 2006. Just 40 months elapsed from concept to carrying traffic. The 2,120-foot bridge, with a 1,160-foot cable-stayed main span, incorporates a multi-level glass observatory at the top of one pylon, the world’s tallest public bridge observatory; along with a high tech cradle system for the stays, designed for a service life exceeding 125 years, with low maintenance and ease in inspection. The project costs including approach roadway, right-of-way acquisition, design and construction engineering costs, and the bridge, with the observatory, total $85 million. Inspired to replace an aging bridge quickly, and including extensive public involvement, Maine Department of Transportation contracted with FIGG to design the bridge and shortly afterwards brought construction partners Cianbro/Reed & Reed, LLC, into the team. Maine DOT held separate contracts with FIGG and Cianbro/Reed & Reed, but all three parties signed a partnering agreement that identified responsibilities and risks for each member of the team, along with committing themselves to the completion of a landmark bridge for the people of Maine. All parties are pleased with the process and outcome; a true win-win-win situation.
So, DBIA invited the Maine Department of Transportation (Owner), Figg Engineering Group (FIGG, Designer) and Cianbro/Reed & Reed, LLC (Contractor), to discuss the “owner-facilitated design-build method” that was developed for this successfully completed project. The roundtable discussion includes coaches for the team: (1) Kenneth L. Sweeney, P.E., director, Bureau of Project Development, Maine Department of Transportation; (2) Linda Figg, president/CEO, FIGG Bridge Engineers, Inc.; (3) Frank Susi, vice president/general manager, Cianbro Corporation; and (4) Jackson Parker, president/CEO, Reed & Reed, Inc.
DBIA: Describe your “owner-facilitated design-build process” for our readers. Would you each consider working in a similar arrangement again?
Sweeney: “We had a discussion early on, before we even hired a designer, and agreed that neither design-build nor design-bid-build was the right approach for this unique project. We were looking for a method of delivery that was between the two. We wanted to have more influence on the end product and include the public to gain their support, all while keeping to a very aggressive schedule. Frankly, traditional design-build was not fast enough. There were literally hundreds of ideas that were looked at and then either discarded or accepted, based on budget constraints, durability, product quality, schedule or aesthetic issues. I don’t think that traditional design-build or design-bid-build offered the opportunity to have all three parties in the project sit down and go through those types of iterations together and have those discussions.
In owner-facilitated design-build, the Owner takes on a strong role in the project, but along with that role we also have to assume some of the risk. In a normal design-build project, we define the original constraints that results in a project proposal and cost from the design-builder. The risk is then on the design-builder to produce. In order to get more control over the outcome, we had to take our share of the risk, both in budget and schedule. That explains why we went through so many different iterations of design concepts, because we were essentially designing to the budget and schedule at all times. Every time we considered an option, cost was one of the most important factors and we had to see if it would fit within the available budget. If the answer was no, we either crossed it off the list of considerations or tried to modify it. That’s where the design iterations and pricing exercises were combined to work within the constraints of the project. We would certainly use this process again under similar circumstances.”
Figg: “What the Maine Department of Transportation pioneered in this unique design-build approach is an example of a process that offers truly outstanding opportunities for other owners in the country. The Owner received the bridge that truly fulfills their vision and all along they knew the corresponding costs. They established a unique partnership approach of a blended team that became like a family and was able to seamlessly work together toward achieving a common goal. The bond that was created from that process was very unique in the industry. I know that we would enjoy working in this type of arrangement again.”
Susi: “We would be pleased to utilize this process again. Being able to brainstorm ideas and concepts as a team was a great motivator. We knew what an important project this was for the Maine DOT and the traveling public. As a team, we came up with a path forward for the project that fit within the Owner’s constraints. Throughout the process there were many challenges, but the end product is very rewarding.”
Parker: “Yes, I would certainly agree with that. Realistically, one of the things that made it successful was if one of us fails, we all fail. Neither the Designer nor the Contractor nor the Owner could afford to fail on a project of this magnitude. There was just no way we could fail and we kept sight of that at all times; that made a huge difference.”
Sweeney: “You need the right mix, the right Contractor, Designer, and Owner. I can see where this could be very risky for other folks. I’m sure there are some contractors and some design firms that just would not work with what we did. We partnered this project from the beginning. It was what we went through on a daily basis, with our progress meetings, our coaches meetings and our management meetings. As the team got together and we started having regular conversations and communications, things went really well. Partnering in the project served to refocus us from time to time.”
Susi: “I agree with that. I’m a big proponent of partnering. The good thing about partnering is it always gets you back and refocused.”
Sweeney: “There are times when you get a problem, constraint, rock, barrier, however you describe it, among the three parties. We’d just need to get through this almost impossible issue, and we’d work through it. What did this project allow us to do? It allowed the three major stakeholders to get in a room and talk through things, without necessarily being worried about who was going to pay for what, or how we were going to do it. It allowed us the ability to open up and put all the cards on the table. I don’t think any other type of contracting process would have allowed us to do that. From an Owner’s perspective, we were pretty clear about our constraints in terms of budget, what we could pay for, what we could not. From the Designer’s standpoint, they were upfront with what would work structurally or design-wise, and the Contractor laid out on the table what they could do and how much it would cost. And there was a discussion about that and it always resulted in us coming to agreement on changes that had to be made by all parties. We all adjusted, continually, through the whole project.”
Susi: “One thing from the Contractor’s side, the Maine DOT was flexible enough through this process where we had areas that really weren’t complete enough with details at the time of pricing to give you a firm price, so we had allowances. That makes it so much easier. If you’re in a design-build process, you have to price out everything and it’s the Contractor’s responsibility. The innovation of having that management fund, it’s a great concept and allowed us to be flexible. It allows the Owner and Contractor in particular, to reassess risk allocation at key decision points. I think we all did that with our eyes wide open, knowing that the risk had to be shared fairly and equally among the parties and we did so.”
Sweeney: “The construction management fund was just that, a contingency account. In areas where there were increases and as you’re going through a process where you don’t have the decision completely done, obviously you don’t have enough information, these are the items the construction management fund is used for. The way it was set up, we wouldn’t have ongoing issues. If we reached a deadlock and couldn’t agree on something, we had the option of going to the construction management fund. Another fund was for allowance items. We knew we were going to use things like lighting fixtures, dampeners, the floor finishes in the observatory, various items where there was not enough information to bid yet, but we knew they were needed and they were going to cost something. So as a way to get started, we put those items on an allowance list track and when they were itemized we determined a formula on how to calculate the pluses and minuses for those items. We also used shared-cost items for things like the form travelers on the project. The form travelers are an item that at the end of the job, you don’t know what they’ll be worth, but they’re worth some salvage value. Rather than try to have that negotiation upfront, you just decide whatever we get out of it, we’ll share it. There were risk items that we really didn’t have all the numbers for, but we needed to move on. We needed to have a contract and we needed to get building, so we came up with a method of dealing with those items that were satisfactory to everybody. Out of the philosophy in that process, we always agreed on items where we could, then those that we don’t agree on, let’s take care of what we can, then discuss the small pieces at the end of it. On a $100,000 item, if we could agree on $80,000, we agreed to move forward with that, but let’s talk about the $20,000 as we move on with design and construction. It’s better not to have a huge thing that we couldn’t get around, but instead keep moving as we could.”
DBIA: Since the working relationships ultimately benefited this project, what suggestions do you have in helping to create this type of challenge-solving attitude for other projects?
Parker: “The coaches’ concept is unique and important to the process and the team. Everybody on the design side, the DOT side, and the contractor’s side could look up to the coach’s level and see that we were on the same page 99.99 percent of the time. We essentially presented a unified front on issues and demonstrated week after week and month after month that we would solve problems and move on. That set a tone that everyone followed.”
Figg: “I agree. The coaches program worked very well to help everyone from the contractor, designer and owner to be extra cooperative in helping each other. The minute by minute team partnering at the site showed they could solve things without taking items to the coaches. We went for long stretches without any coaches calls. I miss the coaches getting together because we worked well as a team. There was a sense of pride in knowing that the process allowed the field team to be empowered and have confidence to work through any challenge together.”
INFO: FIGG (www.figgbridge.com)