Project Delivery Selection Workshop Summary

Workshop Summary

Project Name:

Workshop Date:

Workshop Location:

Facilitator:

Delivery Method
Selected:

Workshop Participants
Name Email

1
 Project Delivery Selection Matrix

Overview
This document provides a formal approach for selecting project delivery methods for highway projects. The information
below lists the project delivery methods followed by an outline of the process, instructions, and evaluation worksheets for
use by state transportation agency (STA) staff and project team members. By using these forms, a brief Project Delivery
Selection Report can be generated for each individual project. The primary objectives of this tool are:

 Present a structured approach to assist Agencies in making project delivery decisions;

 Assist Agencies in determining if there is a dominant or optimal choice of a delivery method; and
 Provide documentation of the selection decision.

Background
The project delivery method is the process by which a construction project is comprehensively designed and constructed
including project scope definition, organization of designers, constructors and various consultants, sequencing of design
and construction operations, execution of design and construction, and closeout and start-up. Thus, the different project
delivery methods are distinguished by the manner in which contracts between the agency, designers and builders are
formed and the technical relationships that evolve between each party inside those contracts. Currently, there are several
types of project delivery systems available for publicly funded transportation projects. The most common systems are
Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Design-Build (DB), and Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC). No single project
delivery method is appropriate for every project. Each project must be examined individually to determine how it aligns
with the attributes of each available delivery method.

Primary delivery methods

Design-Bid-Build is the traditional project delivery method in which an agency designs, or retains a designer to furnish
complete design services, and then advertises and awards a separate construction contract based on the designer’s
completed construction documents. In DBB, the agency “owns” the details of design during construction and as a result,
is responsible for the cost of any errors or omissions encountered in construction.

Design-Build is a project delivery method in which the agency procures both design and construction services in the same
contract from a single, legal entity referred to as the design-builder. The method typically uses Request for Qualifications
(RFQ)/Request for Proposals (RFP) procedures rather than the DBB Invitation for Bids procedures. The design-builder
controls the details of design and is responsible for the cost of any errors or omissions encountered in construction.

Construction Manager / General Contractor is a project delivery method in which the agency contracts separately with
a designer and a construction manager. The agency can perform design or contract with an engineering firm to provide a
facility design. The agency selects a construction manager to perform construction management services and construction
works. The significant characteristic of this delivery method is a contract between an agency and a construction manager
who will be at risk for the final cost and time of construction. Construction industry/Contractor input into the design
development and constructability of complex and innovative projects are the major reasons an agency would select the

2
CMGC method. Unlike DBB, CMGC brings the builder into the design process at a stage where definitive input can have
a positive impact on the project. CMGC is particularly valuable for new non-standard types of designs where it is difficult
for the agency to develop the technical requirements that would be necessary for DB procurement without industry input.

Facilitation of the tool

When embarking on using the project delivery selection tool for the first time, it is recommended that a facilitator is
brought in for the workshop. The facilitator will assist with working through the tool and provide guidance for discussing
the project and selection of a delivery method. This individual should be knowledgeable about the process and should be
consistently used. The facilitator also helps to answer questions and make sure the process stays on track and the team
moves towards a formal selection.

Participation
Using the project delivery selection matrix is only as good as the people who are involved in the selection workshop.
Therefore, it is necessary to have a collection of individuals to participate in the selection of the delivery method. The
selection team needs to include the project manager, the project engineer, a representative of the procurement/contracting
office, and any other STA staff that is crucial to the project. In addition, the selection team might want to consider
including representatives from specialty units and from the local jurisdictions where the project is located. However, it is
important to keep the selection team to a minimum amount of participants. Otherwise, the selection process can take a
long time to complete. Normally, 3-7 people represent a selection team, but this number should be based on the specific
project being analyzed.

Potential bias
The best approach for the participants of the workshop is to keep an open mind about the delivery method to choose.
However, there might be participants that have a preconceived notion about the delivery method to use on a project. When
this occurs, it is best to discuss that person’s ideas with the entire selection team at the beginning of the workshop. Putting
that person’s ideas on the table helps others to understand the choice that person has in mind. Then, it is important to
acknowledge this person’s ideas, but to remind that person to keep an open mind as the team works through the selection
process.

Pre-workshop Tasks
Before conducting the selection workshop, a few tasks can be completed by the workshop participants. Preparing for the
workshop prior to conducting it will result in a much more concise and informative session. It is advised that participants
review all known project information, goals, risks, and constraints prior to the workshop. The best approach is to complete
the Project Delivery Description, the Project Delivery Goals, and the Project Delivery Constraints worksheets before
conducting the workshop. Completing the three worksheets will shorten the time needed to review the project and allows
the workshop team to move right into the selection process.

3
 Project Delivery Selection Process
The process is shown in the outline below and a flowchart on the next page. It consists of individual steps to complete the
entire process. The steps should be followed in sequential order.

STAGE I - Project Attributes, Goals, and Constraints

A. Delivery methods to consider
1. Design-Bid-Build
2. Design-Build
3. Construction Manager / General Contractor
B. Project Description/Goals/Constraints
1. Project attributes
2. Set project goals
3. Determine and review project dependent constraints
STAGE II – Primary Factor Evaluation
A. Assess the primary factors (these factors most often determine the selection).
1. Delivery Schedule
2. Complexity & Innovation
3. Level of Design
4. Cost
B. If the primary factors indicate there is a clear choice of the delivery method, then:
5. Perform an initial risk assessment for the desired delivery method to ensure that risks can be properly
allocated and managed, and
STAGE III – Secondary Factor Evaluation
A. Perform a pass/fail analysis of the secondary factors to ensure that they are not relevant to the decision.
6. Staff Experience/Availability (Agency)
7. Level of Oversight and Control
8. Competition and Contractor Experience
B. If steps B, C & D do not result in clear determination of the method of delivery then perform a more rigorous
evaluation of all eight factors against the three potential methods of delivery (DBB, DB and CMGC).

NOTE: Typically, the entire selection process can be completed by the project team in a 3 hour workshop session, as long
as each team member has individually reviewed and performed the assessment prior to the workshop.

4
Flowchart of the Project Delivery Selection Process

5
 Project Delivery Selection Matrix Worksheets and Forms
The following forms and appendices are included to facilitate this process.

Project delivery description worksheet

Provide information on the project. This includes size, type, funding, risks, complexities, etc. All information should be
developed for the specific project.

Project delivery goals worksheet – including example project goals

A careful determination of the project goals is an instrumental first step of the process that will guide both the selection of
the appropriate method of delivery for the project.

Project delivery constraints worksheet - including example project constraints

Carefully review all possible constraints to the project. These constraints can potentially eliminate a project delivery
method before the evaluation process begins.

Project delivery selection summary form

The Project Delivery Selection Summary summarizes the assessment of the eight selection factors for the three delivery
methods. The form is qualitatively scored using the rating provided in the table below. The form also includes a section
for comments and conclusions. The completed Project Delivery Selection Summary should provide an executive
summary of the key reasons for the selection of the method of delivery.

Rating Key
++ Most appropriate delivery method

+ Appropriate delivery method

– Least appropriate delivery method

X Fatal Flaw (discontinue evaluation of this method)

NA Factor not applicable or not relevant to the selection

Workshop blank form

This form can be used by the project team for additional documentation of the process. In particular, it can be used to
elaborate the evaluation of the Assessment of Risk factor.

Project delivery methods selection factor opportunities / obstacles form

These forms are used to summarize the assessments by the project team of the opportunities and obstacles associated with
each delivery method relative to each of the eight Selection Factors. The bottom of each form allows for a qualitative
conclusion using the same notation as described above. Those conclusions then are transferred to the Project Delivery
Selection Summary.

6
Project delivery methods opportunities / obstacles checklists
These forms provide the project team with direction concerning typical delivery method opportunities and obstacles
associated with each of the eight Selection Factors. However, these checklists include general information and are not an
all-inclusive checklist. Use the checklists as a supplement to developing project specific opportunities and obstacles.

Risk assessment guidance form

Because of the unique nature of Selection Factor 5, Assessment of Risk, this guidance section provides the project team
with additional assistance for evaluation of the risk factor including: Typical Transportation Project Risks; a General
Project Risks Checklist; and a Risk Opportunities/Obstacles Checklist.

7
 Project Delivery Description
The following items should be considered in describing the specific project. Other items can be added to the bottom of
the form if they influence the project delivery decision. Relevant documents can be added as appendices to the final
summary report.

Project Attributes
Project Name:

Location:

Estimated Budget:

Estimated Project Delivery Period:

Required Delivery Date (if applicable):

Source(s) of Project Funding:

Project Corridor:

Major Features of Work – pavement, bridge, sound barriers, etc.:

Major Schedule Milestones:

Major Project Stakeholders:

Major Obstacles (as applicable)

With Right of Way, Utilities, and/or Environmental Approvals:

During Construction Phase:

Main Identified Sources of Risk:

Safety Issues:

Sustainable Design and Construction Requirements:

8
 Project Delivery Goals
An understanding of project goals is essential to selecting an appropriate project delivery method. Therefore, project
goals should be set prior to using the project delivery selection matrix. Typically, the project goals can be defined in three
to five items and need to be reviewed here. Example goals are provided below, but the report should include project-
specific goals. These goals should remain consistent over the life of the project.

Project-Specific Goals
Goal #1:

Goal #2:

Goal #3:

Goal #4:

Goal #5:

General Project Goals (For reference)

Schedule
 Minimize project delivery time
 Complete the project on schedule
 Accelerate start of project revenue
Cost
 Minimize project cost
 Maximize project budget
 Complete the project on budget
 Maximize the project scope and improvements within the project budget
Quality
 Meet or exceed project requirements
 Select the best team
 Provide a high quality design and construction constraints
 Provide an aesthetically pleasing project
Functional
 Maximize the life cycle performance of the project
 Maximize capacity and mobility improvements
 Minimize inconvenience to the traveling public during construction
 Maximize safety of workers and traveling public during construction

9
 Project Delivery Constraints
There are potential aspects of a project that can eliminate the need to evaluate one or more of the possible delivery
methods. A list of general constraints can be found below the table and should be referred to after completing this
worksheet. The first section below is for general constraints and the second section is for constraints specifically tied to
project delivery selection.

General Constraints
Source of Funding:

Schedule constraints:

Federal, state, and local laws:

Third party agreements with railroads, ROW, etc:

Project Delivery Specific Constraints

Project delivery constraint #1:

Project delivery constraint #2:

Project delivery constraint #3:

Project delivery constraint #4:

Project delivery constraint #5:

General Project Constraints

Schedule
 Utilize federal funding by a certain date
 Complete the project on schedule
 Weather and/or environmental impact
Cost
 Project must not exceed a specific amount
 Minimal changes will be accepted
 Some funding may be utilized for specific type of work (bridges, drainage, etc)
Quality
 Must adhere to standards proposed by the Agency
 High quality design and construction constraints
 Adhere to local and federal codes
Functional
 Traveling public must not be disrupted during construction
 Hazardous site where safety is a concern
 Return area surrounding project to existing conditions

10
 Project Delivery Selection Summary
Determine the factors that should be considered in the project delivery selection, discuss the opportunities and obstacles
related to each factor, and document the discussion on the following pages. Then complete the summary below.

PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD OPPORTUNITY/OBSTACLE SUMMARY

DBB DB CMGC
Primary Selection Factors

1. Delivery Schedule

2. Project Complexity & Innovation

3. Level of Design

4. Cost

5. Perform Initial Risk Assessment

Secondary Selection Factors

6. Staff Experience/Availability
(Agency)

7.Level of Oversight and Control

8. Competition and Contractor

Experience

Rating Key
++ Most appropriate delivery method

+ Appropriate delivery method

– Least appropriate delivery method

X Fatal Flaw (discontinue evaluation of this method)

NA Factor not applicable or not relevant to the selection

11
Project Delivery Selection Summary Conclusions and Comments

12
Project Delivery Selection Matrix Primary Factors

13
1) Delivery Schedule
Delivery schedule is the overall project schedule from scoping through design, construction and opening to the public.
Assess time considerations for starting the project or receiving dedicated funding and assess project completion
importance.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD - Requires time to perform sequential design and procurement, but if design time is available has
the shortest procurement time after the design is complete.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Ability to get project under construction before completing design. Parallel process of design and
construction can accelerate project delivery schedule; however, procurement time can be lengthy due to the time
necessary to develop an adequate RFP, evaluate proposals and provide for a fair, transparent selection process.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Quickly gets contractor under contract and under construction to meet funding obligations before completing
design. Parallel process of development of contract requirements, design, procurements, and construction can
accelerate project schedule. However, schedule can be slowed down by coordinating design-related issues between
the CM and designer and by the process of reaching a reasonable Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

14
2) Project Complexity and Innovation
Project complexity and innovation is the potential applicability of new designs or processes to resolve complex technical
issues.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD - Allows Agency to fully resolve complex design issues and qualitatively evaluate designs before
procurement of the general contractor. Innovation is provided by Agency/Consultant expertise and through traditional
agency directed processes such as VE studies and contractor bid alternatives.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Incorporates design-builder input into design process through best value selection and contractor
proposed Alternate Technical Concepts (ATCs) – which are a cost oriented approach to providing complex and
innovative designs. Requires that desired solutions to complex projects be well defined through contract requirements.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Allows independent selection of designer and contractor based on qualifications and other factors to jointly
address complex innovative designs through three party collaboration of Agency, designer and Contractor. Allows for a
qualitative (non-price oriented) design but requires agreement on GMP.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

15
3) Level of Design
Level of design is the percentage of design completion at the time of the project delivery procurement.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD - 100% design by Agency or contracted design team, with Agency having complete control over
the design.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Design advanced by Agency to the level necessary to precisely define contract requirements and
properly allocate risk (typically 30% or less).
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Can utilize a lower level of design prior to procurement of the CMGC and then joint collaboration of Agency,
designer, and CMGC in the further development of the design. Iterative nature of design process risks extending the
project schedule.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

16
4) Cost
Project cost is the financial process related to meeting budget restrictions, early and precise cost estimation, and control of
project costs.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD - Competitive bidding provides a low cost construction for a fully defined scope of work. Costs
accuracy limited until design is completed. More likelihood of cost change orders due to contractor having no design
responsibility.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Designer-builder collaboration and ATCs can provide a cost-efficient response to project goals.
Costs are determined with design-build proposal, early in design process. Allows a variable scope bid to match a fixed
budget. Poor risk allocation can result in high contingencies.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Agency/designer/contractor collaboration to reduce risk pricing can provide a low cost project however non-
competitive negotiated GMP introduces price risk. Good flexibility to design to a budget.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

17
5) Initial Risk Assessment
Risk is an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has an effect on a project’s objectives. Risk allocation is the
assignment of unknown events or conditions to the party that can best manage them. An initial assessment of project risks
is important to ensure the selection of the delivery method that can properly address them. An approach that focuses on a
fair allocation of risk will be most successful.

DESIGN-BID-BUILD - Risk allocation for design-bid-build best is understood by the industry, but requires that most
design-related risks and third party risks be resolved prior to procurement to avoid costly contractor contingency pricing,
change orders, and potential claims.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Provides opportunity to properly allocate risks to the party best able to manage them, but requires
risks allocated to design-builder to be well defined to minimize contractor contingency pricing of risks.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Provides opportunity for Agency, designer, and contractor to collectively identify and minimize project risks,
and allocate risk to appropriate party. Has potential to minimize contractor contingency pricing of risk, but can lose the
element of competition in pricing.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

18
Project Delivery Selection Matrix Secondary Factors

19
6) Staff Experience and Availability
Agency staff experience and availability as it relates to the project delivery methods in question.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD - Technical and management resources necessary to perform the design and plan development.
Resource needs can be more spread out.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Technical and management resources and expertise necessary to develop the RFQ and RFP and
administrate the procurement. Concurrent need for both design and construction resources to oversee the
implementation.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Strong, committed Agency project management resources are important for success of the CMGC process.
Resource needs are similar to DBB except Agency must coordinate CM’s input with the project designer and be
prepared for GMP negotiations.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

20
7) Level of Oversight and Control
Level of oversight involves the amount of agency staff required to monitor the design or construction, and amount of
agency control over the delivery process

DESIGN-BID-BUILD - Full control over a linear design and construction process.

Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Less control over the design (design desires must be written into the RFP contract requirements).
Generally less control over the construction process (design-builder often has QA responsibilities).
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Most control by Agency over both the design, and construction, and control over a collaborative
agency/designer/contractor project team
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

21
8) Competition and Contractor Experience
Competition and availability refers to the level of competition, experience and availability in the market place and its
capacity for the project.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD - High level of competition, but GC selection is based solely on low price. High level of
marketplace experience.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

DESIGN-BUILD - Allows for a balance of price and non-price factors in the selection process. Medium level of
marketplace experience.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

CMGC - Allows for the selection of the single most qualified contractor, but GMP can limit price competition. Low level
of marketplace experience.
Opportunities Obstacles Rating

22
Project Delivery Selection Factors Opportunities and Obstacles Checklists
(With project risk assessment and checklists)

23
1) Delivery Schedule Project Delivery Selection Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Schedule is more predictable and more manageable ☐ Requires time to perform a linear design-bid-construction
☐ Milestones can be easier to define process
☐ Projects can more easily be “shelved” ☐ Design and construction schedules can be unrealistic due to
☐ Shortest procurement period lack industry input
☐ Elements of design can be advanced prior to permitting, ☐ Errors in design lead to change orders and schedule delays
construction, etc. ☐ Low bid selection may lead to potential delays and other
☐ Time to communicate/discuss design with stakeholders adverse outcomes.
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Potential to accelerate schedule through parallel design-build ☐ Request for proposal development and procurement can be
process intensive
☐ Shifting schedule risk to DB team ☐ Undefined events or conditions found after procurement, but
☐ Encumbers construction funds more quickly during design can impact schedule and cost
☐ Industry input into design and schedule ☐ Time required to define technical requirements and
expectations through RFP development can be intensive
☐ Fewer chances for disputes between agency and design-
☐ Time required to gain acceptance of quality program
builders
☐ More efficient procurement of long-lead items ☐ Requires agency and stakeholder commitments to an
expeditious review of design
☐ Ability to start construction before entire design, ROW, etc.
is complete (i.e., phased design)
☐ Allows innovation in resource loading and scheduling by DB
team
CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Ability to start construction before entire design, ROW, etc. ☐ Potential for not reaching GMP and substantially delaying
is complete (i.e., phased design) schedule
☐ More efficient procurement of long-lead items ☐ GMP negotiation can delay the schedule
☐ Early identification and resolution of design and construction ☐ Designer-contractor-agency disagreements can add delays
issues (e.g., utility, ROW, and earthwork) ☐ Strong agency management is required to control schedule
☐ Can provide a shorter procurement schedule than DB
☐ Team involvement for schedule optimization
☐ Continuous constructability review and VE
☐ Maintenance of Traffic improves with contractor inputs
☐ Contractor input for phasing, constructability and traffic
control may reduce overall schedule

24
2) Project Complexity and Innovation Project Delivery Selection Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Agencies can have more control of design of complex ☐ Innovations can add cost or time and restrain contractor’s
projects benefits
☐ Agency and consultant expertise can select innovation ☐ No contractor input to optimize costs
independently of contractor abilities ☐ Limited flexibility for integrated design and construction
☐ Opportunities for value engineering studies during design, solutions (limited to constructability)
more time for design solutions ☐ Difficult to assess construction time and cost due to
☐ Aids in consistency and maintainability innovation
☐ Full control in selection of design expertise
☐ Complex design can be resolved and competitively bid
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Designer and contractor collaborate to optimize means and ☐ Requires desired solutions to complex designs to be well
methods and enhance innovation defined through technical requirements (difficult to do)
☐ Opportunity for innovation through draft RFP, best value and ☐ Qualitative designs are difficult to define (example.
ATC processes aesthetics)
☐ Can use best-value procurement to select design-builder with ☐ Risk of time or cost constraints on designer inhibiting
best qualifications innovation
☐ Constructability and VE inherent in process ☐ Some design solutions might be too innovative or
☐ Early team integration unacceptable
☐ Sole point of responsibility ☐ Quality assurance for innovative processes are difficult to
define in RFP

CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Highly innovative process through 3 party collaboration ☐ Process depends on designer/CM relationship
☐ Allows for agency control of a designer/contractor process ☐ No contractual relationship between designer/CM
for developing innovative solutions ☐ Innovations can add cost or time
☐ Allows for an independent selection of the best qualified ☐ Scope additions can be difficult to manage
designer and best qualified contractor
☐ Preconstruction services fees for contractor involvement
☐ VE inherent in process and enhanced constructability
☐ Cost competitiveness – single source negotiated GMP
☐ Risk of innovation can be better defined and minimized and
allocated
☐ Can take to market for bidding as contingency

25
3) Level of Design Project Delivery Selection Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ 100% design by agency ☐ Agency design errors can result in a higher number of change
☐ Agency has complete control over the design (can be orders, claims, etc.
beneficial when there is one specific solution for a project) ☐ Minimizes competitive innovation opportunities
☐ Project/scope can be developed through design ☐ Can reduce the level of constructability since the contractor
☐ The scope of the project is well defined through complete is not bought into the project until after the design is
plans and contract documents complete
☐ Well-known process to the industry
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Design advanced by the agency to level necessary to ☐ Must have very clear definitions and requirements in the RFP
precisely define the contract requirements and properly because it is the basis for the contract
allocate risk ☐ If design is too far advanced it will limit the advantages of
☐ Does not require much design to be completed before design-build
awarding project to the design-builder (between ~ 10% - ☐ Potential for lacking or missing scope definition if RFP not
30% complete) carefully developed
☐ Contractor involvement in early design, which improves ☐ Over utilizing performance specifications to enhance
constructability and innovation innovation can risk quality through reduced technical
☐ Plans do not have to be as detailed because the design- requirements
builder is bought into the project early in the process and ☐ Less agency control over the design
will accept design responsibility ☐ Can create project less standardized designs across agency as
a whole
CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Can utilize a lower level of design prior to selecting a ☐ Teaming and communicating concerning design can cause
contractor then collaboratively advance design with agency, disputes
designer and contractor ☐ Three party process can slow progression of design
☐ Contractor involvement in early design improves ☐ If design is too far advanced it will limit the advantages of
constructability CMGC or could require design backtracking
☐ Agency controls design
☐ Design can be used for DBB if the price is not successfully
negotiated
☐ Design can be responsive to risk minimization

26
4) Cost Project Delivery Selection Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Competitive bidding provides a low cost construction to a ☐ Cost accuracy is limited until design is completed
fully defined scope of work ☐ Construction costs are not locked in until design is 100%
☐ Increase certainty about cost estimates complete
☐ Construction costs are contractually set before construction ☐ Cost reductions due to contractor innovation and
begins constructability is difficult to obtain
☐ More potential of cost change orders due to Agency design
responsibility
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Contractor input into design should moderate cost ☐ Risks related to design-build, lump sum cost without 100%
☐ Design-builder collaboration and ATCs can provide a cost- design complete, can compromise financial success of the
efficient response to project goals project
☐ Costs are contractually set early in design process with
design-build proposal
☐ Allows a variable scope bid to match a fixed budget
☐ Potential lower average cost growth
☐ Funding can be obligated in a very short timeframe
CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Agency/designer/contractor collaboration to reduce project ☐ Non-competitive negotiated GMP introduces price risk
risk can result in lowest project costs ☐ Difficulty in GMP negotiation introduces some risk that
☐ Early contractor involvement can result in cost savings GMP will not be successfully executed requiring aborting
through VE and constructability the CMGC process
☐ Cost will be known earlier when compared to DBB ☐ Paying for contractors involvement in the design phase may
☐ Integrated design/construction process can provide a cost increase total cost
efficient strategies to project goals
☐ Can provide a cost efficient response to the project goals

27
5a) Initial Risk Assessment Guidance
Three sets of risk assessment checklists are provided to assist in an initial risk assessment relative to the selection of the
delivery method:

 Typical Transportation Project Risks

 General Project Risks Checklist
 Opportunities/Obstacles Checklist (relative to each delivery method)

It is important to recognize that the initial risk assessment is to only ensure the selected delivery method can properly
address the project risks. A more detailed level of risk assessment should be performed concurrently with the
development of the procurement documents to ensure that project risks are properly allocated, managed, and minimized
through the procurement and implementation of the project.

Typical Transportation Project Risks

Following is a list of project risks that are frequently encountered on transportation projects and a discussion on how the
risks are resolved through the different delivery methods.

1) Site Conditions and Investigations

How unknown site conditions are resolved. For additional information on site conditions, refer to 23 CFR 635.109(a) at
the following link:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
c=ecfr&sid=91468e48c87a547c3497a5c19d640172&rgn=div5&view=text&node=23:1.0.1.7.23&idno=23#23:1.0.1.7.23.1.1.9

DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Site condition risks are generally best identified and mitigated during the design process prior to procurement to
minimize the potential for change orders and claims when the schedule allows.

DESIGN-BUILD
Certain site condition responsibilities can be allocated to the design-builder provided they are well defined and
associated third party approval processes are well defined. Caution should be used as unreasonable allocation of site
condition risk will result in high contingencies during bidding. The Agency should perform site investigations in
advance of procurement to define conditions and avoid duplication of effort by proposers. At a minimum, the Agency
should perform the following investigations:

1) Basic design surveys

2) Hazardous materials investigations to characterize the nature of soil and groundwater contamination

3) Geotechnical baseline report to allow design-builders to perform proposal design without extensive additional
geotechnical investigations

28
 CMGC
The STA, the designer, and the contractor can collectively assess site condition risks, identify the need to perform site
investigations in order to reduce risks, and properly allocate risk prior to GMP.

2) Utilities
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Utility risks are best allocated to the Agency, and mostly addressed prior to procurement to minimize potential for
claims when the schedule allows.

DESIGN-BUILD
Utilities responsibilities need to be clearly defined in contract requirements, and appropriately allocated to both design-
builder and the Agency:

Private utilities (major electrical, gas, communication transmission facilities): Need to define coordination and
schedule risks, as they are difficult for design-builder to price. Best to have utilities agreements before procurement.
Note – by state regulation, private utilities have schedule liability in design-build projects, but they need to be made
aware of their responsibilities.

Public Utilities: Design and construction risks can be allocated to the design-builder, if properly incorporated into the
contract requirements.

CMGC
Can utilize a lower level of design prior to contracting and joint collaboration of Agency, designer, and contractor in the
further development of the design.

3) Railroads (if applicable)

DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Railroad risks are best resolved prior to procurement and relocation designs included in the project requirements when
the schedule allows.

DESIGN-BUILD
Railroad coordination and schedule risks should be well understood to be properly allocated and are often best assumed
by the Agency. Railroad design risks can be allocated to the designer if well defined. Best to obtain an agreement with
railroad defining responsibilities prior to procurement

CMGC
Railroad impacts and processes can be resolved collaboratively by Agency, designer, and contractor. A lengthy
resolution process can delay the GMP negotiations.

4) Drainage/Water Quality Best Management Practices (construction and permanent)

Both drainage and water quality often involve third party coordination that needs to be carefully assessed with regard to
risk allocation. Water quality in particular is not currently well defined, complicating the development of technical
requirements for projects.

Important questions to assess:

29
 1) Do criteria exist for compatibility with third party offsite system (such as an OSP (Outfall System Plan))?
2) Is there an existing cross-drainage undersized by design Criteria?
3) Can water quality requirements be precisely defined? Is right-of-way adequate?

DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Drainage and water quality risks are best designed prior to procurement to minimize potential for claims when the
schedule allows.

DESIGN-BUILD
Generally, the Agency is in the best position to manage the risks associated with third party approvals regarding
compatibility with offsite systems, and should pursue agreements to define requirements for the design-builder.

CMGC
The Agency, the designer, and the contractor can collectively assess drainage risks and coordination and approval
requirements, and minimize and define requirements and allocate risks prior to GMP.

5) Environmental
Meeting environmental document commitments and requirements, noise, 4(f) and historic, wetlands, endangered species,
etc.
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Risk is best mitigated through design prior to procurement when the schedule allows.

DESIGN-BUILD
Certain environmental approvals and processes that can be fully defined can be allocated to the design-builder.
Agreements or MOUs with approval agencies prior to procurement is best to minimize risks.

CMGC
Environmental risks and responsibilities can be collectively identified, minimized, and allocated by the Agency, the
designer, and the contractor prior to GMP

6) Third Party Involvement

Timeliness and impact of third party involvement (funding partners, adjacent municipalities, adjacent property owners,
project stakeholders, FHWA, PUC).

DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Third party risk is best mitigated through design process prior to procurement to minimize potential for change orders
and claims when the schedule allows.

DESIGN-BUILD
Third party approvals and processes that can be fully defined can be allocated to the design-builder. Agreements or
MOUs with approval agencies prior to procurement is best to minimize risks.

30
 CMGC
Third party approvals can be resolved collaboratively by the Agency, designer, and contractor.

5b) General Project Risk Checklist (Items to consider when assessing risk)
Environmental Risks External Risks
☐ Delay in review of environmental documentation ☐Stakeholders request late changes
☐ Challenge in appropriate environmental documentation ☐Influential stakeholders request additional needs to serve their
☐ Defined and non-defined hazardous waste own commercial purposes
☐ Environmental regulation changes ☐Local communities pose objections
☐ Environmental impact statement (EIS) required ☐Community relations
☐ NEPA/ 404 Merger Process required ☐Conformance with regulations/guidelines/ design criteria
☐ Environmental analysis on new alignments required ☐Intergovernmental agreements and jurisdiction

Third-Party Risks Geotechnical and Hazmat Risks

☐ Unforeseen delays due to utility owner and third-party ☐Unexpected geotechnical issues
☐ Encounter unexpected utilities during construction ☐Surveys late and/or in error
☐ Cost sharing with utilities not as planned ☐Hazardous waste site analysis incomplete or in error
☐ Utility integration with project not as planned ☐Inadequate geotechnical investigations
☐ Third-party delays during construction ☐Adverse groundwater conditions
☐ Coordination with other projects ☐Other general geotechnical risks
☐ Coordination with other government agencies
Right-of-Way/ Real Estate Risks Design Risks
☐ Railroad involvement ☐ Design is incomplete/ Design exceptions
☐ Objections to ROW appraisal take more time and/or money ☐ Scope definition is poor or incomplete
☐ Excessive relocation or demolition ☐ Project purpose and need are poorly defined
☐ Acquisition ROW problems ☐ Communication breakdown with project team
☐ Difficult or additional condemnation ☐ Pressure to deliver project on an accelerated schedule
☐ Accelerating pace of development in project corridor ☐ Constructability of design issues
☐ Additional ROW purchase due to alignment change ☐ Project complexity - scope, schedule, objectives, cost, and
deliverables - are not clearly understood
Organizational Risks Construction Risks
☐ Inexperienced staff assigned ☐ Pressure to delivery project on an accelerated schedule.
☐ Losing critical staff at crucial point of the project ☐ Inaccurate contract time estimates
☐ Functional units not available or overloaded ☐ Construction QC/QA issues
☐ No control over staff priorities ☐ Unclear contract documents
☐ Lack of coordination/ communication ☐ Problem with construction sequencing/ staging/ phasing
☐ Local agency issues ☐ Maintenance of Traffic/ Work Zone Traffic Control
☐ Internal red tape causes delay getting approvals, decisions
☐ Too many projects/ new priority project inserted into
program

31
5c) Assessment of Risk Project Delivery Selection Opportunities/Obstacles Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Risks managed separately through design, bid, build is ☐ Agency accepts risks associated with project complexity (the
expected to be easier inability of designer to be all-knowing about construction)
☐ Risk allocation is most widely understood/used and project unknowns
☐ Opportunity to avoid or mitigate risk through complete ☐ Low-bid related risks
design ☐ Potential for misplaced risk through prescriptive
☐ Risks related to environmental, railroads, & third party specifications
involvement are best resolved before procurement ☐ Innovative risk allocation is difficult to obtain
☐ Utilities and ROW best allocated to the agency and mostly ☐ Limited industry input in contract risk allocation
addressed prior to procurement to minimize potential for ☐ Change order risks can be greater
claim
☐ Contractor may avoid risks
☐ Project can be shelved while resolving risks
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Performance specifications can allow for alternative risk ☐ Need a detailed project scope, description etc., for the RFP to
allocations to the design builder get accurate/comprehensive responses to the RFP (Increased
☐ Risk-reward structure can be better defined RFP costs may limit bidders)
☐ Innovative opportunities to allocate risks to different parties ☐ Limited time to resolve risks
(e.g., schedule, means and methods, phasing) ☐ Additional risks allocated to designers for errors and
☐ Opportunity for industry review of risk allocation (draft RFP, omissions, claims for change orders
ATC processes) ☐ Unknowns and associated risks need to be carefully allocated
☐ Avoid low-bid risk in procurement through a well-defined scope and contract
☐ Contractor will help identify risks related to environmental, ☐ Risks associated with agreements when design is not
railroads, ROW, and utilities completed
☐ Designers and contractors can work toward innovative ☐ Poorly defined risks are expensive
solutions to, or avoidance of, unknowns ☐ Contractor may avoid risks or drive consultant to decrease
cost at risk to quality
CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Contractor can have a better understanding of the unknown ☐ Lack of motivation to manage small quantity costs
conditions as design progresses ☐ Increase costs for non-proposal items
☐ Innovative opportunities to allocate risks to different parties ☐ Disagreement among Designer-Contractor-Agency can put the
(e.g., schedule, means and methods, phasing) process at risk
☐ Opportunities to manage costs risks through CMGC ☐ If GMP cannot be reached, additional low-bid risks appear
involvement
☐ Limited to risk capabilities of CMGC
☐ Contractor will help identify and manage risk
☐ Designer-contractor-agency disagreements can add delays
☐ Agency still has considerable involvement with third parties to
deal with risks ☐ Strong agency management is required to negotiate/optimize
☐ Avoids low-bid risk in procurement risks
☐ Discovery of unknown conditions can drive up GMP, which can
☐ More flexibility and innovation available to deal with unknowns
be compounded in phased construction
early in design process

32
6) Staff Experience and Availability Project Delivery Selection Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Agency, contractors and consultants have high level of ☐ Can require a high level of agency staffing of technical
experience with the traditional system resources
☐ Designers can be more interchangeable between projects ☐ Staff’s responsibilities are spread out over a longer design
period
☐ Can require staff to have full breadth of technical expertise
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Less agency staff required due to the sole source nature of ☐ Limitation of availability of staff with skills, knowledge and
DB personality to manage DB projects
☐ Opportunity to grow agency staff by learning a new process ☐ Existing staff may need additional training to address their
changing roles
☐ Need to “mass” agency management and technical resources
at critical points in process (i.e., RFP development, design
reviews, etc.)
CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Agency can improve efficiencies by having more project ☐ Strong committed agency project management is important
managers on staff rather than specialized experts to success
☐ Smaller number of technical staff required through use of ☐ Limitation of availability of staff with skills, knowledge and
consultant designer personality to manage CMGC projects
☐ Existing staff may need additional training to address their
changing roles
☐ Agency must learn how to negotiate GMP projects

33
7) Level of Oversight and Control Project Delivery Selection Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Full agency control over a linear design and construction ☐ Requires a high-level of oversight
process ☐ Increased likelihood of claims due to agency design
☐ Oversight roles are well understood responsibility
☐ Contract documents are typically completed in a single ☐ Limited control over an integrated design/construction
package before construction begins process
☐ Multiple checking points through three linear phases: design-
bid-build
☐ Maximum control over design
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ A single entity responsibility during project design and ☐ Can require high level of design oversight
construction ☐ Can require high level of quality assurance oversight
☐ Continuous execution of design and build ☐ Limitation on staff with DB oversight experience
☐ Getting input from construction to enhance constructability ☐ Less agency control over design
and innovation
☐ Control over design relies on proper development of
☐ Overall project planning and scheduling is established by one
technical requirements
entity
CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Preconstruction services are provided by the construction ☐ Agency must have experienced staff to oversee the CMGC
manager ☐ Higher level of cost oversight required
☐ Getting input from construction to enhance constructability
and innovation
☐ Provides agency control over an integrated
design/construction process

34
8) Competition and Contractor Experience Project Delivery Selection Checklist
DESIGN-BID-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Promotes high level of competition in the marketplace ☐Risks associated with selecting the low bid (the best
☐ Opens construction to all reasonably qualified bidders contractor is not necessary selected)
☐ Transparency and fairness ☐No contractor input into the process
☐ Reduced chance of corruption and collusion ☐Limited ability to select contractor based on qualifications
☐ Contractors are familiar with DBB process
DESIGN-BUILD
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Allows for a balance of qualifications and cost in design- ☐ Need for DB qualifications can limit competition
builder procurement ☐ Lack of competition with past experience with the project
☐ Two-phase process can promote strong teaming to obtain delivery method
“Best Value” ☐ Reliant on DB team selected for the project
☐ Increased opportunity for innovation possibilities due to the ☐ The gap between agency experience and contractor
experience with delivery method can create conflict
diverse project team
CMGC
Opportunities Obstacles
☐ Allows for qualifications based contractor procurement ☐ Currently there is not a large pool of contractors with
☐ Agency has control over an independent selection of best experience in CMGC, which will reduce the competition and
qualified designer and contractor availability
☐ Contractor is part of the project team early on, creating a ☐ Working with only one contractor to develop GMP can limit
project “team” price competition
☐ Increased opportunity for innovation due to the diversity of ☐ Requires a strong project manager from the agency
the project team ☐ Teamwork and communication among the project team

35