The Design-Build Contracting

Methodology for
Transportation Projects:
A Review of Practice and
Evaluation for Connecticut
Applications
June 2010
A Report By
The Connecticut
Academy of Science
and Engineering

For

The Connecticut Department of

Transportation

The Design-Build
Contracting Methodology
for Transportation Projects:
A Review of Practice and
Evaluation for Connecticut
Applications
A Report By

The Connecticut Academy

of Science and Engineering
Origin of Inquiry:

The Connecticut Department of

Transportation

Date Inquiry
Established:
May 15, 2009

Date Response
Released: June 10, 2010

Copyright, 2010. Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

This study was initiated at the request of the Connecticut Department of Transportation on
May 15, 2009. The project was conducted by an Academy Study Committee with the support of
Study Managers Eric Jackson, PhD, and James Mahoney. The content of this report lies within
the province of the Academys Transportation Systems Technical Board. The report has been
reviewed by Academy Member Gale Hoffnagle. Martha Sherman, the Academys Managing
Editor, edited the report. The report is hereby released with the approval of the Academy
Council.

Richard H. Strauss
Executive Director

Disclaimer
The contents of this report reect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reect the official views
or policies of the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation.
The US Government and the Connecticut Department of Transportation do not endorse
products or manufacturers.

ii

connecticut academy of science and engineering

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.
CT-2261-F-10-6

2. Government Accession No.

4. Title and Subtitle

The Design-Build Contracting Methodology for
Transportation Projects: A Review of
Practice and Evaluation for Connecticut
Applications
7. Author(s)
Eric Jackson, Study Manager
James Mahoney, Co-Study Manager

3. Recipients Catalog No.

5. Report Date

June 2010

6. Performing Organization Code

SPR-2261

8. Performing Organization Report No.

CT-2261-F-10-6

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

10. Work Unit No. (TRIS)

Connecticut Academy of Science & Engineering

179 Allyn Street, Suite 512
Hartford, CT 06103

11. Contract or Grant No.

CT Study No. SPR-2261

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Connecticut Department of Transportation
2800 Berlin Turnpike
Newington, CT 06131-7546

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report
May 2009 June 2010
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
SPR-2261

15. Supplementary Notes

Project partners: Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) - Bureau of
Engineering and Highway Operations, Division of Research; Connecticut Academy of
Science and Engineering; and the Connecticut Transportation Institute, University
of Connecticut. Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract
Two primary contracting methods are used by most state transportation agencies to
design and build infrastructure: design-bid-build and design-build. The objective
of this study is to conduct a literature review to identify how ConnDOTs use of
design-build contracting methodology may benefit the State of Connecticut.
Advantages and disadvantages to design-build and design-bid-build are discussed in
this report with respect to transportation projects in Connecticut. The report
focuses on the challenges that must be overcome to make design-build viable in
Connecticut. The primary conclusion of this study is that ConnDOT should be able to
utilize the DB contracting methodology for design and construction of
transportation-related projects. It is noted that DB is not entirely new to ConnDOT
as the commissioner has the authority to modify or eliminate the bidding process
for emergency declaration projects. The General Assembly should adopt legislation
permitting use of DB contracting as an option for transportation projects. The
legislation should require ConnDOT to periodically report on its experience in
utilizing DB contracting to the Transportation Committee and other relevant
committees of the Connecticut General Assembly for the purposes of determining the
value and benefits of this method of contracting to the state and the public.
17. Key Words
18. Distribution Statement
Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build;
No restrictions. This document is available
alternative contracting
to the public through the National Technical
methodologies
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif.
(Of this report)
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

20. Security Classif.(Of

this page)
Unclassified

Reproduction of completed page authorized

21. No. of
Pages
75

20. Price
N/A

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

iv

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

MEMBERS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE

ON The Design-Build Contracting Methodology for
Transportation Projects:
A Review of Practice and Evaluation for
Connecticut Applications
Timothy L. Brewer, AIA
Principal
TLB Architecture
Peter Cable, PhD (Academy Member)
Principal Scientist
Applied Physical Sciences Corporation
John T. DeWolf, PhD (Academy Member);
Chairman
Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of Connecticut

Herbert Levinson (Academy Member)

Transportation Consultant
Professor of Civil Engineering (ret.)
University of Connecticut
Richard Thomas
Vice President, Advocacy & External Affairs
Design Build Institute of America
Shirley Ybarra
Senior Transportation Policy Analyst
Reason Foundation

Research Team
STUDY MANAGER

CO-STUDY MANAGER

Eric Jackson, PhD

Assistant Research Professor
Connecticut Transportation Institute
Connecticut Advanced Pavement Laboratory
University of Connecticut

James Mahoney
Executive Program Director
Connecticut Transportation Institute, and
Program Director
Connecticut Advanced Pavement Lab
University of Connecticut

ACADEMY PROJECT STAFF

Richard H. Strauss
Executive Director
Ann G. Bertini
Assistant Director for Programs

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

vi

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
executive summary

Executive Summary
Study PURPOSE
The objective of this study is to conduct a literature review to identify how the Connecticut
Department of Transportations (ConnDOT) use of design-build (DB) contracting methodology
may benefit the State of Connecticut. There are well documented advantages and disadvantages
to both DB and design-bid-build (DBB) methods that are discussed in this report with respect
to transportation projects in Connecticut. The report focuses on the challenges that must be
overcome to make DB viable in Connecticut.
This study was conducted by the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) at
the request of the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF PRIMARY CONCLUSION

ConnDOT should be able to utilize the DB contracting methodology for design and construction
of transportation-related projects. It is noted that DB is not entirely new to ConnDOT, as the
commissioner has the authority to modify or eliminate the bidding process for emergency
declaration projects. The General Assembly should adopt legislation permitting use of DB
contracting as an option for transportation projects. The legislation should require ConnDOT
to periodically report on its experience in utilizing DB contracting to the Transportation
Committee and other relevant committees of the General Assembly for the purposes of
determining the value and benefits of this method of contracting to the state and the public.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND
Two primary contracting methods are used by most state transportation agencies to design and
build infrastructure. The first, DBB, is a project delivery method where a project owner (for the
purposes of this report, the owner will be considered a department of transportation [DOT])
executes multiple contracts for architectural/engineering services and construction. The second
method, DB, is a project delivery method where the DOT issues a single contract for both
architectural/engineering design services and construction services with a single entity.
Currently, DBB is the only project delivery method available to ConnDOT since it does not have
legislative authority to use the DB method.

STUDY DESCRIPTION
The conclusions and recommendations developed by the study committee and research team
were derived from
connecticut academy of science and engineering

vii

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
executive summary

1. A literature review of existing design-build programs across the United States

2. DB project case studies
3. A survey of prominent state DOTs currently using DB
4. Guest presentations on a variety of aspects related to DB
5. Meetings conducted with various ConnDOT staff to gain an understanding of their
perceived roles as related to the use of DB

Contracting Methodology: Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantages identified for DB are a shortened project delivery timetable, greater price
assurance, and the potential for innovative design. The primary disadvantages of DB include
a subjective contract award selection process (if best value is used), high cost for proposer bid
preparation, and significant permitting issues on environmentally sensitive projects. The reported
advantages and disadvantages of DB and DBB are provided in the following table.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Design-Bid-Build
Owner-Loyal Design Team

Low Bid Contract Award May Impact

Contract Award Objectivity (Lowest

Price is the Only Consideration)

Design Is Fully Defined Before
Contractor Bids
Reduced Project Monetary Cost
through Competitive Lowest Bid
Process
Quality and Quantity Control and
Inspection
Opportunities for Small or New
Contractors

Project Quality
Agency is a Middleman Between
Designer and Contractor
Contractor is Not Involved in the Design
Process
Project Timetable Subject to Additional
Contracts and Change Orders
Changes in Design and Constructability
May Significantly Increase Final Price

Design-Build
Potentially Shorter Project Timeline
Reduced Number of Change Orders
Price Certainty, If Fixed Price is Used
Agency Not Involved in Contractor/
Designer Disputes
Contractor and Designer Work Together
Early in the Project and Throughout the
Project
Potential for Innovative Design
Reduced Legal Claims Against Owners

viii

Subjective Contract Award

High Cost for Contractors to Prepare a Bid
Environmental Permitting, Utility Relocation
and ROW Acquisition Can be Significant
Challenges
Agency limited in controlling quality unless
performance specifications are used.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
executive summary

Another benefit to DB is potential cost savings. The use of DB was originally controlled by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under Special Experimental Project No. 14 Innovative Contracting (SEP-14). The objective of the SEP-14 project was to evaluate innovative
contracting practices that have the potential to reduce project life-cycle cost, while maintaining
quality. Under SEP-14, cost-plus-time bidding, lane rental, design-build contracting, and warranty
clauses were evaluated and later determined suitable for use by state transportation agencies. A
review of SEP-14 DB projects, reported in FHWA (2006), indicated a 3% cost savings over DBB
projects. However, the cost savings varied based on project type, complexity and size, and were
not seen on every project. Therefore, selection of DB or DBB as the contracting methodology for a
project should take into consideration the various factors and goals of each project.

CASE DB Survey Summary

A DB survey gathered information from a select group of states concerning their DB programs
and experience. Appendix B contains a list of questions asked of each agency and their
responses. The agencies surveyed were
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA)
Massachusetts Highway Administration (MassDOT)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT)
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
The primary survey responses indicate that
All agencies reported that the benefits of their DB program include time savings and
reduction in change orders.
All the state DOTs surveyed included innovative design as an achieved benefit.
All agenciesexcept PennDOThave a dedicated in-house DB project manager.
PennDOT has a DB Pro-Team at its central office that reviews DB projects and contracts
that are developed by district offices.
The majority of agencies use a best value approach to contractor selection. However,
PennDOT only uses lowest bid. Mn/DOT and MSHA stated that they may also use a
lowest bid approach. Colorado has the option to use a modified pass/fail lowest bid
approach.
Only PennDOT and Mn/DOT responded that they have a modified permitting process
for environmental or other permits.
All agencies reported that using DB has had a positive or no impact on small contractors
in their state. The agencies also stated that they worked with local construction
organizations when they developed their DB program.
No state surveyed reported any issues with local labor unions.
connecticut academy of science and engineering

ix

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
executive summary

Connecticut Design-Build Challenges

The use of DB has been successful in other states. These DB programs have many common
practices that guide implementation to achieve desired outcomes and results in the use of DB
contracting. However, in developing a DB program, Connecticut should consider unique factors
such as its transportation systems, ethical issues in contracting, and political history and culture.
Challenges ConnDOT will need to address in developing and implementing a DB program
include the following:
Permitting: For projects that require environmental permits, the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) anticipates that project designs will
be virtually complete (approximately 90% complete) prior to issuance of permits.
Therefore, under DB the DEP would need to be able to issue permits without
necessarily having reviewed the completed project designs.
Training and Staffing: ConnDOT staff and design/engineering companies and
contractors in the state need to gain experience in DB contracting through training.
This training can be provided by several national DB organizations. ConnDOT needs
to commit dedicated staff to overseeing and supporting DB projects. ConnDOT should
also appoint a DB project manager that oversees all DB projects and is active in project
selection, while the department maintains traditional DBB processes and practices for a
majority of projects.
Contractor Experience: Many Connecticut construction and design/engineering
companies may not have DB contracting experience. However, the Connecticut
Department of Public Works has been using DB for over 17 years so some Connecticut
contractors are familiar with DB. If DB is to succeed, ConnDOT will need to support,
help train and advise contractors on DB risks and methods.
Best Value Contractor Selection: Best value contractor selection includes price and
technical proposal considerations that involves subjectivity in contract award decisions.

Summary of Recommendations
Connecticut Design-Build Methods:
ConnDOT should designate staff to develop, implement, maintain, and lead the
departments DB program. Training should be provided to ConnDOT staff to assure
project and program success. Training should not be limited to dedicated DB staff,
but should extend to staff from all areas of the department with project-related
responsibilities such as design, construction, inspection, properties/rights of way, and
contracting.
ConnDOT staff should develop an understanding of the risks assumed by the
department and contractor for DB projects. DB project contractors assume more risk
than for typical DBB projects. ConnDOT project delivery practices should be adapted
to support the responsibilities assumed by the DB contractor, while at the same time
protecting the interests and risk assumed by the department.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
executive summary

ConnDOT should develop a DB procedure manual that will serve as a guide for DB
project operations. This manual will also serve as an educational outreach tool for
department staff, as well as to inform potential contractors of how ConnDOT will
manage DB projects.
Implementation of ConnDOTs DB program should include outreach to both
engineering consulting companies and contractors, including smaller and mid-size
contractors, to inform them about the DB contracting program and process.
For DB projects that involve third parties for environmental permitting (such as DEP,
EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers), utility relocation (utility companies), or system
scheduling (such as AMTRAK and Metro-North), as well as for other issues, it is
suggested that these entities be involved early in the project concept development
process to limit the risk assumed by DB contractors who are offered the opportunity to
submit project proposals.
ConnDOT should incorporate stipends into the project selection process. The issuing
of stipends should follow federal policy 23 CFR 636.112. All shortlisted proposers that
submit acceptable proposals should receive compensation for their design/proposal
efforts. In return, ConnDOT would have ownership rights to the designs prepared by
all proposers and have the ability to incorporate proposed design elements into the final
design regardless of the contractor selected.
Key criteria in DB project selection should include the need for design innovation and
reduction in project duration. ConnDOTs DB program needs to provide flexibility to
allow for design innovation, since that is one of the key advantages of DB.

Future Use of Design-Build in Connecticut:

Vertical construction (buildings) and horizontal transportation construction projects
should be considered for DB contracting.
Vertical construction projects should be considered as a possibility for initial DB
contracting. The Connecticut Department of Public Works (DPW) experience
utilizing DB contracting for its projects should provide valuable lessons learned in the
Connecticut context for this type of project, as well as contractor familiarity with DB
contracting.
Horizontal construction should not be excluded from any pilot projects.
Initially, DB should be utilized on projects that have little or no environmental impact.
However, DB contracting could be used on more complex projects, including those with
environmental issues, after ConnDOT and the other agencies and contractors involved
gain some experience with DB, especially where a project is expected to benefit from
innovative project design.

Concluding Remarks
The Design-Build contracting methodology for transportation projects represents a significant
change in the way projects are managed and delivered by transportation agencies. An
important aspect of the DB contracting methodology is developing collaboration and the
connecticut academy of science and engineering

xi

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
executive summary

business relationship between the project engineering/architect and construction contractor.

The interaction of the construction contractor with the designer working as a team represents
a culture shift from the traditional design and construction project delivery methodology
(DBB). Responsibilities of the DB contractor team demand that the project team work together
to resolve project design and constructability issues to deliver a quality product in an efficient
manner.
When there is a need to perform quickly on projectsas in emergenciesowners put teams
together to get the job done. Complex problems are always solved more efficiently and with
optimal solutions through collaboration. Collaboration occurs throughout a DB project, not only
within the DB design/construction team, but also with the owner.
DB provides for single source responsibility with incorporation of opportunity for innovation.
A well managed process is essential to protect interests of the owner. To assure project quality
and success, owner oversight and inspection are critical to protect the states interests. Also,
the owner must trust the DB contractor team to deliver a project on time and on budget while
maintaining the owners profit margin. This requires communication in a seamless system for
optimum efficiency for project design and construction with practices that are designed for
timely decision-making to keep projects on schedule and within budget.
While many transportation agencies currently use DB for only a small percentage of projects,
the DB method should be considered as an additional contracting tool when the benefits
warrant its use. ConnDOTs implementation of DB will require a commitment of staff resources
and changes in the departments procedures and practices to accommodate the special
requirements of design-build contracting.

xii

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... vii
Study Purpose......................................................................................................... vii
Brief Statement of Primary Conclusion.............................................................. vii
Study Description................................................................................................... vii
Contracting Methodology: Advantages and Disadvantages..........................viii
Connecticut Design-Build Challenges................................................................. ix
Summary of Recommendations..............................................................................x
Connecticut Design-Build Methods:......................................................................x
Future Use of Design-Build in Connecticut:....................................................... xi
Concluding Remarks.............................................................................................. xi
I: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
II: BACKGROUND............................................................................................................3
The Design-Bid-Build Method................................................................................3
Planning Phase..........................................................................................................3
Design Phase..............................................................................................................4
Bidding Phase............................................................................................................4
Construction Phase...................................................................................................5
The Design-Build Method........................................................................................6
Project Selection.........................................................................................................6
Planning Phase..........................................................................................................8
Procurement Phase...................................................................................................8
Request for Qualifications........................................................................................8
Request for Proposals...............................................................................................9
Proposal Invitations and Informational Meeting(s)...........................................12
Proposal Evaluation and Design-Builder Selection...........................................12
Design and Construction Phase............................................................................14
Delivery Method Comparisons.............................................................................16
(continued on next page)
connecticut academy of science and engineering

xiii

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

III: DESIGN BUILD SURVEY.........................................................................................23

Survey Summary.....................................................................................................24
Colorado...................................................................................................................24
Maryland..................................................................................................................25
Massachusetts..........................................................................................................26
Minnesota.................................................................................................................26
New Jersey TRANSIT.............................................................................................26
Pennsylvania............................................................................................................27
IV: DB EXAMPLES OF INNOVATION AND CHALLENGE..................................29
V: CONNECTICUT CONSIDERATIONS FOR DESIGN-BUILD.............................33
VI: FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS.........35
Findings....................................................................................................................35
General Design-Build Contracting:......................................................................35
Design-Build in Connecticut:................................................................................35
Design-Build Findings Critical to Connecticut:..................................................36
Brief Statement of Primary Conclusion...............................................................37
Recommendations...................................................................................................37
Design-Build Project Selection:.............................................................................37
Connecticut Design-Build Methods:....................................................................37
Future Use of Design-Build in Connecticut........................................................38
Concluding Remarks..............................................................................................38
VII: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................41
VIII: REFERENCES..........................................................................................................43
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................45

xiv

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
introduction

I: Introduction
Transportation agencies are always looking to lower the costs and time required to design
and construct transportation infrastructure while maintaining or improving project quality.
One of these strategies is design-build (DB) project delivery. In 1990, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) established the Special Experimental Project Number 14 (SEP-14)
Innovative Contracting. This act allowed state transportation agencies to test and evaluate a
variety of approved alternative project contracting methods. In 2007, section 1503 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) included revised regulations that allow contracting agencies to issue DB request-forproposal documents, award contracts, and issue notices-to-proceed for preliminary design
work prior to the conclusion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process (FHWA,
2006). Consequently, transportation departments across the nation have begun to implement
DB programs. However, there are still state transportation agencies that have not received
legislative approval to use the DB method.
The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) has been tracking states which have adopted DB
legislation. Figure 1 displays an overview of states that have adopted DB legislation over the
last five years. As of 2010 only four states have yet to adopt DB legislation for transportation
projects, including Connecticut. According to the DBIA the increase in authorizing legislation
from 2009 to 2010 was due to the release of federal stimulus funds for transportation projects
and the need to construct these projects in a timely manner.

Figure 1:

Source: Design-Build Institute of America

Design-Build For Transportation Legislation:

connecticut academy of science and engineering

2005, 2009, 2010

1

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
introduction

The objective of this study was to conduct a literature review to identify how using a designbuild (DB) contracting methodology may benefit the state of Connecticut. The literature
review is intended to establish known issues and advantages with the DB process with regard
to its use for transportation infrastructure projects. Furthermore, the research team explored
previous DB projects throughout the United States to determine if there are certain situations
or transportation-related projects where the DB method would be preferred over the traditional
design-bid-build (DBB) method. There are well documented advantages and disadvantages
to both methods. This report explores the pros and cons of each method with respect to
transportation projects in Connecticut. Furthermore, this report focuses specifically on the
challenges DB must overcome to be viable in Connecticut. Additionally, if DB is suggested as
a contracting methodology that would provide benefits to Connecticut, then implementation
strategies will be explored, as well as concepts for legislation that may be necessary to provide
ConnDOT with authorization to utilize DB. This study was conducted by the Connecticut
Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) for the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

II: BACKGROUND
There are two primary methods that most state transportation agencies use to design and build
infrastructure. The first, DBB, is a project delivery method under which a project owner (for the
purposes of this report the owner will be considered a department of transportation [DOT])
executes multiple contracts for architectural/engineering services and construction. The second
method, DB, is a project delivery method under which the DOT issues a single contract for both
the architectural/engineering design services and construction services. Figure 2 is a simplified
organizational chart to illustrate the primary difference between DB and DBB. There are benefits
to each of these design and construction methodologies. Currently, design-bid-build is the only
project delivery method available to the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT),
since the department does not have legislative authority to use the DB method.

Design-Bid-Build

DOT
Design
Architect/Engineer

Design-Build

General
Contractor

DOT
Design
Architect/Engineer

Subcontractors

General
Contractor

Contractor and
Subcontractors

Figure 2: DBB and DB Organizational Charts

The following sections of the report outline how DBB is currently employed by ConnDOT and
how DB is used by other transportation agencies.

The Design-Bid-Build Method

This section outlines ConnDOTs current construction methodology, DBB. This method is not
unique to ConnDOT and has been the traditional contract methodology used by transportation
agencies, although each state may approach the DBB method differently.
DBB is a project delivery method in which the DOT contracts with separate entities for the
design and construction of a project. The four main sequential phases to the DBB delivery
method are planning, design, bidding, and construction.

Planning Phase
The planning phase consists of the preliminary design process where the DOT either contracts
with a consulting firm or conducts an in-house preliminary feasibility study of the proposed
project. During this phase the DOT seeks to establish a well-defined scope of work, desired
connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

product, look and/or functionality. Acceptable projects are then selected for the design phase
based on need and availability of funds.

Design Phase
In this phase, ConnDOT may perform the design in-house or retain an architect or engineer
to supplement their in-house design capabilities. The design cost generally accounts for a
relatively small portion of the projects total costs. Based on a review of 657 ConnDOT DBB
construction projects, on average, 9% of the total project budget was committed to design,
and on 83% of the projects, less than 25% of the total project cost went to design services.
When ConnDOT does not design a project in-house, it selects a design consultant from a list of
prequalified consulting firms that it maintains in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes,
Section 13b-20e.
Consulting firms must submit credentials and qualifications to ConnDOT annually if they are
interested in being considered to provide services to ConnDOT. Based on the prequalification
documents, consultants are categorized and sent ConnDOT project need solicitations. Only
firms prequalified in a calendar year in respective categories are eligible to submit a letter
of interest. Based on the firms which respond to a solicitation, a shortlist of eligible firms is
finalized and/or a selection is made. Consultant selection is guided by the evaluation criteria set
forth in Sections 13b-20b through 13b-20k of the Connecticut General Statutes.
Assuming an outside consultant is utilized for project design, once the consultant is selected,
ConnDOT works closely with them to ensure their design is in compliance with public interest,
design standards and federal/state regulations. ConnDOT conducts design document progress
reviews at 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% completion. Once the design is at least 75% complete,
ConnDOT initiates the environmental permitting process, although DEP is receptive to permit
discussions at an earlier stage of design. DEP anticipates that project designs will be virtually
complete (approximately 90% complete) prior to issuance of permits. At the end of the design
phase, the construction plans generated by ConnDOT or a design consultant are used in the
next two phases of the DBB method.

Bidding Phase
ConnDOT issues a request for bids based on the design that is completed by in-house staff
or consultants. ConnDOT also includes a request for bids or proposals along with the design
specifications for review and consideration of prequalified contractors. The only exceptions to
this requirement are projects that do not require prequalified bidders; in such cases, this will be
noted in the bid specifications for the project.
Questions may arise during the bidding phase, and ConnDOT typically issues clarifications or
addenda to the request for bids. From the design drawings created in the design phase of the
project, the contractor estimates its bid price (ConnDOT may request and bidders may submit
either unit price bids, lump sum bids or a combination of the two) for submission by the closing
date based on the estimated quantity of materials needed to complete the project. ConnDOT
may use lump sum items for a significant percent of the overall project cost for vertical projects.
Once bids are received, ConnDOT reviews the bids and must award the construction contract to

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

the lowest qualified bid. However, potential contractors may be excluded if they do not submit
the required documentation. If the bids received greatly exceed the price range estimated by
ConnDOT, a project may be withdrawn to be scaled back, put on hold, or canceled.

Construction Phase
Before actual operations are started by the contractor, ConnDOT holds a preconstruction
meeting to review the contract and discuss any potential issues either party may have before
construction begins. A Chief Project Engineer assigned to the project by ConnDOT must become
familiar with all phases of the project and learn of any extraordinary features involved.
A critical component of the construction phase is the inspection process. The Chief Project
Inspector, assigned by the Assistant District Engineer, must make a careful study of the plans,
contract(s), special provisions, property agreements, utility agreements, permit applications,
permits, survey and design reports, and specifications for the project. The Chief Project
Inspector is also responsible for maintaining a daily diary that is required for every calendar
day from the actual project start date to the completion date.
The inspection process consists of a review and critical examination of all aspects of the
construction of transportation projects. This process is designed to ensure that proper
materials and details of construction are followed as specified by the design plans, state
construction standards, or special provisions as set forth by ConnDOT. The project inspectors
are also responsible for tracking and reporting the number of units of materials used during
construction. These unit tallies are used by ConnDOT for authorization of payments to
contractors when a contract is based on unit pricing. ConnDOT reserves the right to perform
detailed inspection entirely by state employees or by hiring a private firm. Private, independent
firms represent the Commissioner and act as an agent of the state in accordance with the terms
of their agreements with ConnDOT. They must act in accordance with ConnDOTs established
policies and in the best interest of the state. ConnDOT also performs materials testing to ensure
that materials used on construction projects meet or exceed the design standards of the state
and the project.
During the construction phase of a project, the contractor may find it necessary to request
design changes based on field conditions, constructability issues or errors/omissions. These
change orders must be approved by ConnDOT. They could result in a significant increase
in final project cost and may result in significant time delays in construction if a redesign is
necessary. Once the construction of a project is complete, final project inspection is conducted,
including code inspections and issuance of Certificates of Occupancy if required, and ConnDOT
then issues the final payment to the contractor. ConnDOT also currently employs a system of
incentives and penalties based on the quality and timeliness of the contractor. Contractors may
receive a prorated bonus if a construction project is finished ahead of schedule. Conversely,
ConnDOT may penalize contractors on a project if the materials used do not meet standards,
construction is not timely, or if the final project does not meet the standards set forth in the
contract. In this case, ConnDOT penalizes the contractor by reducing project payment by a
percentage specified in the construction contract.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

The Design-Build Method

This section outlines the general structure of the DB method. Since ConnDOT does not have
legislative authority to use this contracting method, this section describes the method in general
terms. However, the Connecticut Department of Public Works (DPW) has the legislative
authority to use the DB method and has been using the method on select projects for over 15
years.
DB is a project delivery method in which the DOT contracts with a single design-build
contractor for the engineering/architectural design and construction of a project. The designbuilder may be a single firm, a consortium, joint venture, or other organization (FHWA, 2009).
Regardless of how the design-builder is organized, one entity assumes primary responsibility
for design and construction of the project. According to the FHWA (2006), the primary benefit
of the DB process is reduced project delivery schedule, with maintenance of the same level of
quality as the traditional DBB method. The objective of design-build contracting is to deliver
projects better, faster, with fewer Department resources than the conventional design-bid-build
method (WSDOT, 2004).

Project Selection
Not every project is suitable for the DB method. This section outlines the characteristics of a
project that might make it suitable or unsuitable for DB.
Assessment of benefits is the starting point for DB consideration. An agency must objectively
evaluate what can be gained from using DB over the traditional DBB method. DB can be
used to promote innovation, allowing the designer and builder to combine their strengths to
develop new design and construction techniques (FHWA, 2009). Projects best suited to achieve
maximum benefits utilizing DB are those where
significant time savings can be realized through concurrent activities;
designs tailored to a contractors capability will produce a higher-quality, lower-cost
product;
an expedited construction process will reduce the impact to the public;
environmental impacts are minimal, if any, requiring only basic or no permitting.
However, in certain cases, projects with complex environmental conditions may benefit
from use of DB, since this method allows for innovative construction methodologies
and design to potentially limit environmental impacts;
right-of-way and utility impacts are minimal;
DOT staff are able to provide quick turnaround on reviews and approvals;
the agency is committed to and decisive about the overall look and function of a project
from the planning phase;
there is opportunity for risk transfer. In design-build the primary risk is transferred
from the state to the DB contractor.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Project size and complexity can play a major role in project selection for DB contracting.
Projects that are very complex or costly offer the greatest potential for benefit. The integration
of the designer and builder on large or complex projects allows for innovation and cost-saving
construction techniques to be integrated into the design. However, selection of smaller projects
may also benefit an agency. With smaller, lower-cost projects, the risk to the DOT is even lower,
the project schedule may be reduced, contracting costs may be reduced, and smaller firms can
compete and gain experience in using the DB method. Many agencies have a minimum project
cost threshold, where DB cannot legally be used if the estimated project cost is lower than the
state-sanctioned minimum. This threshold varies from state to state. Washington has a $10
million threshold while Massachusetts has a $5 million threshold.
Construction schedule is another major consideration for the selection of a DB project. DB is
often chosen for projects where fast track implementation is a high priority (FHWA, 2009). If
a project must be completed on a restricted time schedule or if traffic impacts are substantial,
the DB method may be advantageous due to a projected shorter construction period than that
estimated for the DBB method. However, DB may not be the best method where there are
outside constraints such as environmental permits, extensive right of way acquisition, complex
third-party agreements, and/or extensive utility relocations.
Assessment of project risk is the main consideration in DB project selection. When considering
a project for DB, the DOT should evaluate its risk and how that relates to the use of DB.
Potential risk factors that an agency should consider when selecting a project for DB (WSDOT
2004) include the following:
Construction administration

Liability for design

Permit requirements

Site conditions/Differing site conditions

Utility relocations

Contract changes

Funding

Liquidated damages

QC/QA responsibilities

Performance schedule

Labor disputes

Ability to compete

Weather conditions

Ownership of ideas

Inflation

Cost of proposing

Hazardous materials

Contract terms

Third-party involvement

Payment methodology

Third-party claims

Incentives/disincentives

Schedule

Assignment of risk

Incremental acceptance of work

Bonding requirements

Performance guarantees/warranties

Errors and Omissions

Force majeure

Insurance requirements

Design reviews/approvals

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Planning Phase
Similar to DBB, the planning phase in DB consists of a preliminary design process involving
a contracted consulting firm or in-house design staff. Early in the planning phase, the DOT
decides if the project is suitable for the DB method. During this phase, the DOT seeks to
establish a well-defined scope of work, desired product, and look and/or functionality. In the
DB method this phase is critical for a successful project. Since a full design is not in place during
the bidding process for construction, the DOT bears a larger responsibility for fact-finding and
background research to ensure bidders can accurately estimate project cost. To develop an
adequate request for bidders, the DOT typically completes 15%30% of the preliminary design.
At this level of design, the DOT should be able to present a well-defined project that provides
potential design-builders with enough information to formulate an accurate bid to complete
project design and construction. At this stage of the design development process, the DOT must
also describe minimum quality and standards and/or prepare a performance specification.
This reduces the DOTs risk and helps to assure that the end product is of the desired quality
and that the use of unique materials that are more costly to maintain than would be provided
in a DBB project is avoided. However, the DOT needs to recognize that after completing the
preliminary design, they need to be completely satisfied with the plan. This is because changes
to the design after contractors submit bids could require the selected design-builder to submit
change orders that could result in significant impacts on project cost and schedule.

Procurement Phase
Once a project is well defined and the DOT is satisfied with the preliminary design, the
procurement process begins. The selection of a design-builder is often completed in two stages.
The first is a request for qualifications (RFQ) and the second is a request for proposals (RFP).
However, FHWAs regulations (23 CFR 636.202) provide guidance on selecting a two-phase or a
single-phase procurement. The single-phase procurement process is typically used in emergency
situations where a rapid delivery schedule is critical. Furthermore, the FHWA requires an
agency to evaluate price in the DB procurement process. The exception to this regulation allows
an agency to award a DB contract on non-price factors when an agency elects to release the final
RFP and award the contract before the conclusion of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process (FHWA, 2009). Federal-aid projects released under that procurement process
may require a price reasonableness determination (See 23 CFR 636.109 and 636.302) (FHWA,
2009).
A literature review was conducted to determine the Best Practice for procurement for DB
projects (NYDOT, 2003; Strong and Juliana, 2005; WSDOT, 2004). The following sections outline
the common steps identified in the review that states employ in their procurement process.
Request for Qualifications
The RFQ is the first step in the two-step selection process. The purpose of the RFQ is to solicit
a well-defined qualifications package from parties interested in submitting a proposal for a
project. The RFQ then serves as an instrument to select the potential bidders for a project at the
RFP stage. The DB selection process complements the DBB process in that prequalification is
required for a proposer to submit a bid. Those interested in being considered for the RFP are
asked to submit documents supporting their capabilities, experience and past performance
on issues pertinent to the DB project. The RFQ should also include requests for project team

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

organization, quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) approach, and current safety record.
To minimize the cost to proposers and increase the number of respondents to the RFQ, an
approach section should not be included in the RFQ. Since research of solutions is expensive,
any proposed solution in the RFQ will most likely not be well researched and not beneficial to
the RFQ shortlist selection process. The approach to the project will be addressed in the RFP
where the proposers are comfortable spending the effort to adequately research a solution.
WSDOT (2004) states that a uniform RFQ is critical and should include specific details such as
maximum number of pages, font size, submittal layout and publicly available scoring criteria to
ensure proposers are aware of project and design priorities.
Based on the responses to the RFQ, a technical committee creates a shortlist of three to five
qualified bidders. This committee should consist of individuals from a broad array of offices
within the DOT and with experience in varying project delivery methods. To help ensure
scoring accuracy, it may be appropriate to have committee members with little to no expertise
in certain areas abstain from those areas. The committee should also be given scoring criteria
that defines the ideal DB team. A team approach using members with a broad background will
help reduce the need for outside research by the committee. The committee should generate a
shortlist of no more than five qualified bidders. WSDOT (2004) recommends that no more than
three proposers be placed on the shortlist due to the extremely high cost of preparing a response
to the RFP.
In discussions between the CASE Study Committee and a local DB contractor, it was noted
that the cost for proposal development alone can exceed $200,000 for a typical DB project.
Consequently, the proposers who are not selected will spend a significant amount of time,
money and resources developing a proposal. Shortlisting more than three firms might cause
some teams to withdraw from the final selection process due simply to increased odds of not
being selected.
Request for Proposals
The primary purpose of the RFP is to explicitly outline the DOTs desired outcomes and specific
requirements for the project. Furthermore, the DOT must provide potential bidders with specific
information that may impact their technical approach and therefore their proposed cost to
design and construct the proposed project. The DOT should also request information regarding
specific design and construction actions, intended final products, construction staging,
traffic control, and project management. The RFP may also request descriptions or design
development of specific elements to a specified level. These preliminary designs will allow the
DOT to evaluate the intent of the design-builder. However, the DOT should recognize the cost
in resources and efforts that will be required of potential bidders. If preliminary design requests
are substantial, potential bidders may not submit a bid for fear of large cost and risk of not
being awarded the contract. The RFP may also request an outline for other items, such as safety
plans and public information plans; however, fully complete documents might not be submitted
by the proposer until after the contract is awarded.
The WSDOT (2004) requires that the RFP document contain the following sections and
sequence:

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Proposal Requirements. The RFQ should be a standard document that requires minimal
modification for each DB RFP. Proposers should refer to this document for explicit instructions
on how to respond to the RFP and formulate the final proposal.
Proposal Contents and Evaluation Criteria. This section of the RFP should outline what each
bidder is required to include in the final proposal and outline how each of these items will be
evaluated in the procurement process. It should be a standard document that requires minor
modifications for each DB project RFP. A well designed RFP should require the proposers to
demonstrate their approach to the project through management plans, a draft QC/QA program,
narratives, sketches, technical drawings, charts, and graphs to support the description of their
concepts. Since the proposal becomes part of the contract documents, requesting submission
of critical information upfront assures the DOT that the contractor has thought out and can
implement the proposed work. The level of detail required for specified tasks should be directly
related to the technical scoring criteria. Therefore, the contractor should have access to the
evaluation criteria while preparing its proposal. This will ensure the proposer provides the DOT
with sufficient information on items that the DOT identifies as critical to the contractor section.
Scope of Work. The primary goal of the scope of work is to develop and describe performancebased criteria for the design-builder to use in designing and constructing project features. This
section should clearly communicate the DOTs envisioned design and construction progression
as well as the desired final product. The scope of work should include operational requirements,
performance expectations, design standards, project limits, available budget, regulatory
requirements, and schedule restrictions. Project requirements from third-party partners also
should be included. However, using too many restrictions may hinder innovation or design
flexibility. The level of detail required in a DB scope of work document is significantly greater
than for a DBB contract. In DB, the scope of work needs to emphasize the DOTs role in the
design review and construction process since a contract award leads directly to construction
of the project with no opportunity for DOT refinement. For this reason any changes to or
ambiguities in the scope of work could result in change orders, which may lead to increased
cost and delayed project delivery.
The developed scope of work should be supplemental to and reference design guidelines and
design/construction standards. The design-builder is ultimately bound by specified materials
or construction processes outlined in the scope of work or the special provisions section of the
RFP. However, for DB projects, performance specifications are more appropriate since they do
not dictate how to do the work but define the expected product. Performance specifications may
address capacity, life span, toughness, ride quality, durability, appearance, conformance with
standards, and other measurable features. The project requirements should also include how the
DOT will determine whether or not the standards are met. Performance specifications also can
include the use of warranties to provide the DOT with confidence in project quality and success.
Warranties also provide the DOT with legal recourse in the event of unsatisfactory project
delivery. However, warranty terms can be limited by the ability of the contractor to obtain
appropriate insurance or extend their bond at a reasonable cost. The warranty or maintenance
contracts should ensure that the product functions within the tolerances of the performance
standard until the end of a stated warranty period. WSDOT (2004) states that warranties are
requested for certain manufactured products regardless of whether the project is DB or DBB.

10

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

In addition to design and construction specifications, the scope of work should also include
provisions for the administrative, operational and progress reporting components of the DB
contract.
As part of the scope of work, the DOT should include a description of the proposed project.
The project description can be thought of as an executive summary of the project that describes
who, what, when, where, and how much; proposers will describe the how (WSDOT 2004).
This document also contains limited construction criteria that the DOT considers relative to
the project. The project description should clearly define the purpose of the project, its limits,
unique conditions, required design criteria, design elements, physical components, schedule
issues, and other items as necessary to fully describe the project (WSDOT 2004). Third-party
responsibilities such as right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, environmental mitigation,
railroad facilities, and public information should be clearly assigned so the proposer is aware of
the DOTs role and expectations. The proposer should be asked to clearly state the references,
methodologies, QC/QA plan, contract administration, construction maintenance, and product
warranties. The DOT should describe any significant issues related to the project in this section.
The project description is often a redundant source of information for the proposers. Therefore,
contract, design and construction requirements should be restricted to the design criteria or
specifications section. WSDOT (2004) recommends the following:
Write the Project Description early in the development of the project, after the project
scope has been set but prior to preliminary work by the [Agency]. It represents the mission
statement for the [Agency]. The most important aspect of the Project Description is that
it provides the vehicle to ensure that the [Agency] understands the complete project and
concurs with the expected products and intended outcomes. It provides a common basis
for distribution of [Agency] work tasks. It will continue to function as a focus point for the
[Agency], evolving as the project evolves.
According to WSDOT (2004), the Project Description typically contains the following
subsections:
General Overview and Funding Limit
Project Purpose and Expectations
Project Components and Limits
Project Requirements and Constraints
Expected Design Work
Expected Construction Work
Warranty or Maintenance Considerations
Design-Build Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. Since there are fundamental
differences between DBB and DB, standard specifications need to be written specifically for DB
contracting due to simultaneous design and construction techniques. The DB standard specifications are expected to be relevant to all DB projects. Any project-specific changes or amendments
that are necessary to the standard specifications are specified in a special provisions section.
connecticut academy of science and engineering

11

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Assignment of Risk and Responsibility. In the DB method, risk is shifted from the DOT to
the contractor. However, it is vital that both parties be aware of how risk is allocated. This may
vary on a project by project basis, reflecting the specifics of the project and the environment. The
WSDOT (2004) requires that an RFP include a Risk/Responsibility Chart. This chart outlines
items the DOT is responsible for and items for which the DB contractor must assume the risk.
Appendix A contains an example of a Risk/Responsibility Chart from WSDOT (2004).
Technical Documents. In order for a proposer to submit an accurate proposal, they will need
to have access to documents prepared by the DOT. These documents should be well defined in
the scope of work and included in the RFP package. These materials may include maps, traffic
forecasts, technical reports, design details, and environmental documentation.
Proposal Invitations and Informational Meeting(s)
Based on the technical committee recommendations, the shortlisted bidders from the RFQ
phase are invited to bid on the design and construction of the project. The RFP is published and
the DOT designates a sole contact person for information requests. The technical committee
should establish a policy before the RFP is released regarding how to respond to requests
for information and what information will be made available. Project information that is
released to interested parties should be consistent for all that inquire. This can be done through
amendments to the RFP or informational meetings hosted by the DOT to address proposers
questions. Any questions raised and answers or clarifications provided must be shared with
other proposers. However, due to the competitive nature of the contract procurement, the
identity of the proposers should remain confidential and posted questions and responses should
not disclose who posed the question.
Proposal Evaluation and Design-Builder Selection
The majority of DB programs are set up to operate under a Best Value selection process.
However, the awards can be made based on lowest bid, fixed price, and stipulated sum or
modified methods specific to DB. In a Best Value approach, design-builders submit two sealed
proposals: Technical Proposal and Price Proposal.
Technical Proposals. In the DB process, the review and evaluation of the technical proposal is
the most important task the committee will undertake. Determination of acceptable proposals is
equivalent to the Design Approval of the DBB process. However, in DB, the DOT also needs
to evaluate the proposed construction process. The technical proposal should also be reviewed
for compliance with the contract requirements, including the relevant codes and manuals. The
technical proposal contains the required documentation and any preliminary designs prepared
by the DB team. This package should not contain any information regarding project cost. The
contents of the technical proposal are evaluated based on the review criteria established in the
RFP. The technical committee scores the proposal based on these criteria. If any members of
the technical review committee do not have experience with a particular portion of the review
criteria, they should abstain from assigning a score to that portion of the criteria. This ensures
that scores obtained from the review criteria are justified and of the highest quality. Once the
technical proposals have been reviewed, the committee may wish to have each proposer present
their proposal to the committee to clarify any issues raised in the proposal review process.
However, these presentations should not be used to allow proposers to fill or revise missing or
incomplete areas of their proposal. Since the written proposal will become a part of the award

12

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

contract, the committee needs to ensure their decision is based on the written proposal and not
discussions held with proposers. Therefore, scoring of the technical proposal should be done
before meeting with the proposer. The committee may wish to incorporate a small portion of the
final technical proposal score to be completed after the meeting with the proposer to account for
significant clarifications. However, if a proposal needs significant clarification, the committee
may not wish to proceed with that proposal and may reject it based on lack of information,
incomplete documentation, unacceptable design, etc.
Price Proposals. The price proposal contains the price associated with the proposed design.
Once the scores have been assigned to the technical proposal, only then should the sealed
price quote be opened and evaluated. The price proposals should be stored in a locked vault
on receipt and opened publicly at a predetermined and advertised time. The prices should be
read aloud and entered into the scoring matrix with the technical scores obtained earlier. This
ensures that the review of the technical proposal is not biased by price to construct the project.
Contract Award. The scores from the technical review and the price review are then entered
into the evaluation criteria and a final score is calculated. Figure 3 is an example of how the final
score is calculated by WSDOT (2004) using the Best Value contractor selection methodology.
Total score equals the proposal technical score determined by a proposal review committee
multiplied by 1,000,000 and divided by the bid price. The technical score is based on how the
proposing contractor addressed a set list of design elements. The key design elements are
provided to potential contractors in the RFQ. In this example, Team D is the lowest bidder
and Team C has the highest technical proposal score. However, Team B would be awarded the
contract since their proposal was rated to provide a perceived higher quality design than Team
D, but at a lower cost than teams A and C. The design-builder is chosen based on a balance of
design and price. Under this scenario, if the projects were awarded solely based on lowest price,
the DOT would receive a design that was scored the lowest in the technical proposal. This is
where innovative design becomes vital to the DB method and the DOT. Innovations included
in proposals allow proposers to gain a competitive advantage in the selection process, reduce
design and construction costs, speed implementation, or gain benefits from any incentive
programs (FHWA, 2009). Under DBB, contractors and designers only meet after the design is
finalized. Then the contractor has to comply with, or request potentially costly changes to, the
agency-approved design.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

13

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Figure 3: Example Design-Build Proposal Score

QC/QA Plan. In DB, inspection, quality assurance, and design reviews will be the metrics that
the DOT uses to gauge compliance. Therefore, before awarding the DB contract, the QC/QA
plan submitted by the contractor should be reviewed and any issues with QC/QA resolved and
finalized before a design and construction contract is awarded.

Design and Construction Phase

After selection of a design-builder and execution of the contract, the contractors project
manager will be responsible for management activities, including progress reports, scheduling,
communication, project direction, project scope changes, and oversight of the quality control
program. Typically the DOT assumes the responsibility for monitoring contract compliance
and schedules, processing progress payments, performing quality assurance activities, assisting
in permitting and right-of-way acquisitions, negotiating contract amendments, and resolving
disputes. However, a well-written project RFP will specify the exact responsibilities and risks
assumed by the DOT and contractor. In terms of quality assurance, the DOT is responsible for
assessing product compliance with contract documents, verification of the design-builders
quality control measures, meeting federal quality requirements and any other requirements
outlined in the negotiated quality control plan.
At the onset of the project, the DOT should establish a DB project team to manage the project
and ensure timely completion. A typical project team may include: Project Engineer, Assistant
Project Engineer, Designer(s), Inspector(s), Material Tester, QA Specialist and administration
staff. The assigned staff should be familiar with the DB process, since the design phase is
typically fast-paced and requires rapid turnaround by the DOT to ensure timely construction.
Specialized training should be offered in the DB method for DOT staff who will be involved
in DB project oversight. Agencies that use DB often have a DB office within the DOT to ensure
that their staff is adequately trained and thoroughly familiar with the DB processes, procedures

14

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

and policies and is dedicated to the success and timely completion of DB projects. During the
construction phase, the design-builder must submit many of the same documents required for a
DBB project that utilizes separate contracts for professional services and construction.
Design Phase
In DB, the design risk is assumed by the design-builder. The DOTs responsibility will be to
determine if the proposed design conforms to the contract.
The responsibility of the design-builder is to design and construct a product that meets the
intended outcome of the DOT. The DOT, per the contract, ensures that the design and
construction meet the standards and requirements outlined in the RFP. Therefore, comments by
the DOT concerning design elements that do not conform to the contract must be incorporated
by the design-builder. Any comments and requests from the DOT outside of the requirements
of the contract are at the design-builders discretion only. The DOT must keep in mind that such
requests may result in change orders from the design-builder that may also include project cost
adjustments.
For the design-builder, the design effort begins by completing the necessary background studies
required by their proposed design. Right-of-way, utility relocations and permitting issues
should be addressed immediately since these will be critical to the project timeline. The DOT
is responsible for right-of-way acquisition and should have started the process based on their
conceptual design. It is the responsibility of the design-builder to notify the DOT if any revisions
to conceptual design require additional right-of-way or permits. Environmental permitting is a
significant challenge in the DB process and will be discussed in detail in Section IV of this report.
Construction Phase
Since design and construction can occur simultaneously in DB, the design-builder can begin
preparing the construction documents once they have obtained the necessary background
material. Since the DOT has already approved the contractors design by selecting their
proposal for contract award, there is typically no further design approval requirement.
The DOT may wish to review plans and provide over-the-shoulder reviews as the project
progresses. However, the DOT should not hinder the design and construction process,
and reviews should have a rapid turnaround. The design-builder will use a phased design
technique. By phasing the design, construction can begin before the design is finalized.
Therefore, construction could commence very near the start date of the contract. Under DB,
the contractor is responsible for hosting the preconstruction meeting to discuss contract
administration and work coordination with outside parties, such as local agencies, utilities and
permitting agencies.
Inspection and Materials Testing. Under DB, the inspection process is typically less demanding
of the DOT than in DBB. However, the authority of the inspector is the same. The primary job
of the inspector is to ensure that construction of the project follows the design submitted by the
design-builder. The design-builder may be required to hire an independent inspector and the
DOTs inspectors should work closely with the design-builders inspectors to ensure all of the
quality control specifications are met.
connecticut academy of science and engineering

15

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

In terms of materials testing, there is no difference in function under DBB as compared to DB.
However, there is a change from the prescriptive specifications of a DBB project to performance
specifications of a DB project. This change may require changes in methods of quality
measurement. This is dependent on the current materials testing program utilized by the DOT.
Also, much of the construction documentation currently being collected under DBB is still
necessary under a DB contract.
Project Completion. Once the DB contractor has fulfilled all conditions of the contract, a
final inspection will be conducted to provide the design-builder with a list of corrective or
incomplete work items to close out the contract. If necessary, the design-builder must correct
any outstanding issues that are identified during the final inspection. Once all issues have been
resolved, the contract is closed and the project is considered complete. In DB projects with
performance specifications, warranty or maintenance contracts, the design-builder will still
be held responsible for repair, retrofit and replacement, or held liable for premature failure of
specified components of the project for the period as specified in the contract.
If the DOT included provisions in the contract for bonuses for early completion or other
performance related incentives or penalties, the design-builders final payment may be
adjusted, in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Delivery Method Comparisons

This section compares the advantages and disadvantages of the DBB method to the DB method.
Each of these project delivery methods has its strengths and weaknesses. These observations
are not limited to ConnDOTs experience. A review of literature was conducted to generate the
following observations. It is important to recognize that the DB method is not a replacement
to DBB, but an additional tool an agency can use when deemed advantageous. DB is not for
every project, just as DBB may not be the best method for every project. Table 1 contains a list of
advantages and disadvantages of each project delivery method.

16

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Contracting Method

Advantages

Disadvantages

Design-Bid-Build
Owner-Loyal Design Team

Low Bid Contract Award May Impact

Contract Award Objectivity (Lowest

Price is the Only Consideration)

Design Is Fully Defined Before
Contractor Bids
Reduced Project Monetary Cost
through Competitive Lowest Bid
Process
Quality and Quantity Control and
Inspection
Opportunities for Small or New
Contractors

Project Quality
Agency is a Middleman Between
Designer and Contractor
Contractor is Not Involved in the Design
Process
Project Timetable Subject to Additional
Contracts and Change Orders
Changes in Design and Constructability
May Significantly Increase Final Price

Design-Build
Potentially Shorter Project Timeline
Reduced Number of Change Orders
Price Certainty, If Fixed Price is Used
Agency Not Involved in Contractor/
Designer Disputes
Contractor and Designer Work Together
Early in the Project and Throughout the
Project
Potential for Innovative Design
Reduced Legal Claims Against Owners

Subjective Contract Award

High Cost for Contractors to Prepare a Bid
Environmental Permitting, Utility Relocation
and ROW Acquisition Can be Significant
Challenges
Agency limited in controlling quality unless
performance specifications are used.

Another benefit to DB is potential cost savings. According to FHWA (2006), a review of SEP14 DB projects indicated a 3% cost savings over DBB projects. However, the cost savings
varied based on project type, complexity and size, and were not seen on every project.
Therefore, selection of DB or DBB as the contracting methodology for a project should take into
consideration the various factors and goals of each project.
Project Delivery Timetable. The DBB process typically takes longer to complete than the DB
process (Figure 4). In DBB, the design must be completed to entertain construction bids and
award a construction contract. Then the contractor may need to submit potentially costly and
schedule-altering change orders to the approved design. Failure of the design team to consider
construction techniques and associated costs could cause project delays if the construction
documents must be modified to reduce costs or ensure a project can be built as designed.
Lessons learned during the petroleum spikes and economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 are
examples where a one-year project delay may equal a significant increase in project cost.
Furthermore, if the architects contract does not contain an explicit redesign clause, disputes
over changes to a finalized design may arise.
connecticut academy of science and engineering

17

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

In DB, by overlapping design and construction and removing the agency from conflicts between
designer and builder, the DB method can usually deliver a project faster than the DBB approach
(Figure 4). Based on the study conducted by Ernzen, et al (2004), a similar DB project can be
completed approximately 20% (200 days) faster than a DBB project. Shortening the project
timescale by nearly a year can have significant financial impacts and can also reduce the
inconvenience to the traveling public. The DB method may allow the agency to implement new
construction projects more rapidly.

Figure 4: Design-Build Vs. Design-Bid-Build Timelines

(from Ernzen et al 2004)
Design Team Loyalty. In DBB, the design team is under contract to and reports directly to the
DOT. Since the design and construction contracts are separate, contractors are not solicited until
the design is complete. Therefore, the designer has no loyalty or financial ties to the contractor
and is able to objectively evaluate and protect the interests of the DOT. In DB, the designer
works for or directly with the contractor and may have a financial interest in cost savings to
increase profit. However, the agency still has control through the RFP and contract to enforce
requested and agreed upon design components and quality.

18

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Contract Award Objectivity. Under DBB, the architect/engineer contracts are awarded on
subjective criteria of experience and qualifications. However, the design contract usually
represents only 5%10% of the total project cost. Therefore, the majority of the total project
budget (>90%) is awarded to a construction contractor based on competitive bidding and
the objective selection method of lowest cost. Construction contract awards that are based
on low-bid selection criteria reduce the opportunity for bias and inappropriate influence in
contractor selection (Hill, 2005). In DB, the entire project may be awarded on a more subjective
qualifications and Best Value basis. In order to ensure ethical and legal selection of a designbuilder, the agency needs to follow a strict selection process and maintain confidentiality
throughout the process. For an agency, the selection process is much more labor intensive in DB
as compared to DBB.
Design Stage. In DBB, since the DOT has a fully developed design at the time a contractor is
awarded the contract, there is little uncertainty about exactly what the DOT requires of the
contractor. Furthermore, as the design goes through the request for bids process, incorrect or
missed items are usually discovered and addressed before construction begins. In DB, the final
design is ambiguous for the contractor at the contract award phase. In the RFP, the DOT must
adequately describe the overall structure they expect the contractor to deliver. A contractors
proposal in response to an RFP includes a preliminary design upon which the DOT awards the
contract without a completed final design. However, the agency can provide the design-builder
with input during the design and construction phase with no impact on project price as long as
the agencys comments and requests are within the scope of the RFP.
Competitive Bidding. In Connecticut, a DBB contract is awarded solely on a lowest price basis.
Therefore, competition motivates bidders to submit their lowest possible price because they
know price is the sole basis for contract award. In DB, contracts can also be based on the lowest
bid, but most often are based on Best Value. The best values method increases competition not
only in price reduction but also for innovative design and solutions. Therefore, contractors need
to be able to balance the needs and desires of an agency while also considering project cost.
Quality Control. In DBB, the detailed working drawings and specifications developed by
the architect/engineer are the basis of the contract between the construction contractor and
agency. In DB, without a contract that is based on detailed working drawings, an agency may
be limited in controlling the quality of the contractors work. To address this issue, DB employs
performance specifications to establish more control on construction quality.
Opportunities for Small or New Contractors. In DBB, small and newly established contractors
with lower overhead may be able to compete with larger companies. This provides qualified
small and new contractors the opportunity to compete for government contracts. In DB there
is a concern that small contractors will not be able to compete with larger DB firms and that
they will be forced out of the market or business. Furthermore, with DB request for bids there
is a significant amount of design work that needs to be completed to generate an accurate
cost estimate. Smaller firms may not wish or be able to invest significant resources and effort
into a design and bid without an assurance of return. To address this issue many states have
provided authorization for agencies to provide stipends to compensate proposers for the cost of
proposal development. The owner is then free to request the incorporation of elements from any
contractors proposed design in the final design.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

19

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

Cost Vs. Quality. In Connecticuts DBB procurement process, the lowest bidder is awarded
the contract. In economically difficult times, a general contractors desire for work may force
them to select the lowest-cost sub-contractors in an attempt to submit the lowest possible bid
so they will be awarded the contract. This increases the risk to the general contractor and can
compromise the quality of construction. In extreme cases, the bankruptcy of a sub-contractor
or a contractor on the brink of insolvency can lead to serious disputes involving final product
quality, or possibly cause the project to be delayed. In such cases, the DOT may be required to
take action to assure project completion that could require the hiring of another contractor to
complete the job while becoming legally entangled in costly litigation. Furthermore, the general
contractor is brought to the team post design, where their input on cost-effective innovative
construction methods and cost-saving construction techniques related to design alternates is
limited. In the DB selection process the DOT has the ability to select a contractor based on the
cost and quality of their design through a Best Value approach.
Agency as a Middleman. The design and construction of a structure is an extremely complex
undertaking. Even with the most prudent architect/engineer, there is the potential for errors
and omissions in the working drawings and specifications. These situations may lead to timeconsuming disputes and costly legal action. Disputes between the architect/engineer and
contractor are present no matter what construction delivery process is used. However, in the
DBB process, the public agency hires the architect/engineer and then sequentially selects a
contractor to build the design. Legally the agency is guarantor of the completeness and accuracy
of the architect/engineers work, since the contractor has no agreement with the architect/
engineer. Therefore, if there are major errors or omissions in the design the contractor may
incur major reconstruction cost or time delays to correct the design. The agency may then
become heavily involved in the dispute between the architect/engineer and contractor. The
DOT may also be the target of litigation because of its perceived deep pockets. In DB, the
public agency is not legally the guarantor of design completeness and accuracy. The DB team,
via the architect/engineer, legally assumes that risk. Therefore the agency may avoid conflicts
and disputes between the architect/engineer and construction contractor since they are not the
middleman between the design and construction company.
Builder Role in the Design Process. With DBB, the request for bids for construction is not issued
until after a full design has been finalized. Therefore, the contractor has limited input on how to
improve the project design, functionality, cost, construction materials and methods. In DB, the
contractor and designer work together from the first stages of project design and can provide
input on how to design a structure for constructability or innovative construction solutions with
consideration of cost, schedule, environmental impact and quality, as well as other factors.
Confidence in Final Price. During the planning and design phase of a DBB project, the architect/
engineer prepares cost estimates typically when the design is 10%, 35%, and 100% complete.
These estimates provide the agency with an early indication of a projects cost. However, until
design is completed and construction bids have been received, the agency cannot be certain
how much the project will cost. Furthermore, any significant change orders to the design once
construction has started could cause major increases in project total cost. In DB, the price is fixed
at the time of contract award. This is particularly beneficial for projects with limited budgets
and can be a key factor in obtaining project funding financing (FHWA, 2009). If bids received
for a DB project are significantly higher than the anticipated budget, the agency can place a
project on hold before significant costs are incurred on a design that is too expensive to build.

20

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

In terms of project cost, since the design-builder is taking on more risk, the overall contracted
project cost may be higher for a DB project than a DBB project. However, DB projects typically
have few or no change orders unless the agency requests a change outside the scope of the RFP,
or the agency did not provide due diligence in the planning phase of project development and
significant unknowns hinder the project. Change orders can increase a projects construction
cost significantly. They can delay construction and can potentially be the source of litigation
against an agency by a contractor. According to FHWA (2009):
Perhaps the most significant reason why Design-Build results in greater cost certainty is
that it involves a single point of responsibility for both design and construction. Designbuilder claims against project owners, based on design defects, are essentially eliminated.
Permitting. In both DBB and DB, permitting, utility relocation and right-of-way acquisition
requires significant resources and effort. In DBB, the contractor and local authorities are
provided with a full set of plans before construction starts. Thus environmental impacts can
be evaluated for permitting purposes. However, in DB, at the time construction is scheduled
to start, construction plans are not complete. This requires the environmental enforcement
and protection agency with jurisdiction to consider permit applications and make permitting
decisions without a completed project design. Depending on the project, the responsible
environmental enforcement and protection agency may determine that it will not issue the
necessary permits and may require that construction be stopped until design plans are finalized
A delay in environmental permitting, unless planned for in the project schedule, would have a
negative impact on the anticipated time savings advantage of DB contracting. Environmental
permitting will be a significant challenge in Connecticut. Section IV outlines the specific
challenges ConnDOT will face if DB is to gain legislative approval.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

21

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
background

22

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
design-build survey

III: Design-Build Survey

A DB survey was developed to gather information from a select group of states with welldefined and documented DB programs. The following criteria were used to select states to be
surveyed. The goal of the criteria was to identify four or five states to be surveyed regarding
their DB programs. For a state to be selected for detailed analysis, it must meet the first criteria.
However, the second two criteria are optional but desired for the state to be included in the
survey process.
1) Identify states with sufficient transportation DB experience. For a state to be included in the
detailed analysis, it must have experience in multiple DB projects. Ideally each state selected
should have experience with a breadth of DB projects and with many of these projects in
transportation-related fields. These projects should vary not only in scale but complexity, with
at least one DB project that faced great challenges or even failed. The selected states should
also have an established DB contracting procedure that they are willing to share. This will
help to ensure that the projects selected and states reviewed give an objective view of DB and
its limitations. Understanding how a state can apply the DB methodology to a wide range of
projects is critical to allowing transferability of this method, and lessons learned, to Connecticut.
2) Identify states with a multimodal Department of Transportation (DOT) structure and
operation. Each state has structured their DOT differently. The Connecticut DOT is responsible
for design and construction of facilities for all modes of transportation in the state (rail,
highway, airports, etc.). Multimodal DOTs should have a larger variety of DB experience that
will provide examples of how they approach the construction of a variety of transportation
facilities.
3) Include states with strong unionized workforces. Connecticut has a strong unionized labor
workforce. Therefore, when investigating the success and failures of DB, it is important to
ensure labor unions in other states are present and comparable. Public employees unions are
assumed to be the main opposition to DB. However, contractor union support is important for
passage of DB legislation. Including state(s) with strong unionized workforces will provide
insight regarding union support, criticism and activism for and against the DB methodology.
The agencies identified using the above criteria were
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA)
Massachusetts Highway Administration (MassDOT)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT)
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)

connecticut academy of science and engineering

23

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
design-build survey

This section summarizes responses to the survey and any additional information obtained
through followup conversations with each agency. Appendix B contains a list of questions
asked of each agency and their responses to each question.

Survey Summary
The following is a summary of key survey findings.
The majority of transportation agencies surveyed were only responsible for highways in
their state. CDOT is also responsible for airports in the Colorado. Therefore several mass
transit agencies in the Northeast were sent the survey. Only NJ TRANSIT responded.
Most agencies completed more than five DB projects with a similar number currently in
progress. The exception was PennDOT, which reported they have completed 77 projects
to date and currently have 200 projects at various stages of design and construction.
All agencies reported that the benefits of their DB program include time savings and
reduction in change orders.
All the state DOTs surveyed included innovative design as an achieved benefit. All
agenciesexcept for PennDOThave a dedicated in-house DB project manager.
PennDOT has a DB Pro-Team at its central office that reviews DB projects and contracts
developed by district offices.
The majority of agencies use a best value approach to contractor selection. However,
PennDOT responded that they only use lowest bid. Mn/DOT and MSHA stated that
they may also use a lowest bid approach. Colorado responded that they have the option
to use a modified pass/fail lowest bid approach.
Only PennDOT and Mn/DOT responded that they have a modified permitting process
for environmental or other permits.
All agencies reported that using DB has had a positive or no impact on small contractors
in their state. The agencies also stated that they worked with local construction
organizations when they developed their DB program.
No state surveyed reported any issues with local labor unions.

Colorado
The Colorado DOT (CDOT) is authorized to use DB for surface transportation projects.
Legislation adopted in 1999 authorized CDOT to use a best value procurement process for
DB contracts. Previously, they used a low-bid process on a few smaller DB interstate projects
(< $50 million). Best value contractor selection was first used by CDOT in 2001 for the $1.186
billion T-REX highway and light rail DB project. CDOT recently modified their DB procurement
process. Currently, DB proposals are generally evaluated based on a two-part scoring process
that includes lowest price and a technically acceptable design. A two-phase adjusted score
process is used to select a DB contractor. Contractors are shortlisted by RFQ, then followed
by proposals. CDOT gives preference to Colorado resident contractors. However, this scoring
metric is removed if it would cause denial of federal funds. Then the project is awarded to the
contractor whose proposal provides best value to department.

24

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
design-build survey

During the legislative process and DB program inception, CDOT shared concerns about the
impact of DB on small and local contractors. Consultants and contractors feared smaller
contractors would not have the opportunity to compete against larger, out-of-state contractors.
There were also fears that contractor/consultant relationships and disadvantaged business
involvement would be adversely affected. CDOT addressed these concerns by involving
stakeholders in the formal rule-making process through task forces. Involving stakeholders
allowed CDOT to address most of the issues raised.
Over the past 15 years, CDOT has used the DB project delivery method on two major projects:
the previously mentioned T-REX project in the Denver Metro area, and the COSMIX project
($130 million) in Colorado Springs. Due to the absence of mega projects, CDOT is currently
attempting to normalize the DB project delivery method for small- to medium-size projects (less
than $50 million). CDOT reported the following major benefits in using DB:

accelerated project delivery

innovation
improved quality
improved project control
better risk management
single source accountability
partnering
value-based project feedback

Also, CDOT recognized the need to educate the public, contractors and internal CDOT staff
about DB processes and techniques and continually works to refine and promote the use of DB in
Colorado.

Maryland
The Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) has completed 23 DB projects and
8 DB projects were in the construction phase at the time of the CASE survey. In Maryland,
governmental organizations, such as MSHA, have legislative DB authorization for capital
projects. Their selection process is based on a competitive sealed proposal and bid process that
allows for a best value selection. The subsequent award must be deemed advantageous to the
state. Best value is determined as a function of price and an evaluation of how well the proposal
addressed critical design factors identified by the departments preliminary design team as
disclosed in the request for proposals.
Completed DB projects in Maryland ranged in cost from $1.5 million to $40 million. However,
MSHA is in the process of awarding a DB contract on a major project valued at over $1.5
billion. This project, the Intercounty Connector, will link existing and proposed development
areas between the I-270/I-370 and I-95/US 1 corridors within central and eastern Montgomery
County and northwestern Prince Georges County with a state-of-the-art, multimodal eastwest highway that limits access and accommodates the movement of passengers and goods.
The project has been broken into five construction contracts; the first three contracts are valued
between $400 million and $520 million individually, and are currently under construction. The
connecticut academy of science and engineering

25

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
design-build survey

last two contracts are valued between $50 million and $80 million individually and are currently
under review.

Massachusetts
In 1998, the Massachusetts legislature authorized MassDOT to use DB for the Route 3 North
Transportation Improvement project. In 2004, authority to use DB was further expanded
to include all project types. MassDOT has completed two DB projects and currently has four
projects in progress. MassDOTs DB process involves prequalification, request for proposals, and
possibly an oral presentation. Contracts are awarded to the team that best meets the selection
criteria for the benefit of the Commonwealth. The agency has the authority to select a project
on a value engineering basis. The formula for contractor selection is included in the RFP for
the project. MassDOT may also include a stipend for the shortlisted contractors that submit an
acceptable bid. This helps to offset the significant cost and effort required to develop a proposal.

Minnesota
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) began using DB in 1996 and
constructed three projects using a low-bid process for contractor selection. However, in
2001, Mn/DOT obtained legislative approval to use a best value procurement process for DB
projects. Mn/DOT has awarded contracts for 10 best value DB projects totaling more than $860
million and currently has three more projects in progress. Mn/DOT is authorized to award DB
contracts using either a two-step best value selection process or a low-bid process. However,
since the best value contractor selection approach was authorized, Mn/DOT has not used a
lowest-bidder approach for awarding contracts. MnDOT cites the following as major benefits
of DB: time savings, design innovation, reduced change orders, improved public relations, and
more project cost certainty. MnDOT has completed projects ranging from $1 million to $234
million dollars. Also, at the county level, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is
authorized to use DB for not more than 10% of its total projects in any fiscal year.

New Jersey TRANSIT

New Jersey Transit (NJT) was asked to complete the DB survey to gain information from a
rail and transit authority. NJT has been using DB for over 10 years and currently has five DB
projects under contract. Followup conversations with NJT indicate they are very satisfied
with the DB method and claim major success in implementation. A dedicated DB project
manager oversees all NJT DB projects. They require the DB contractor to award 50% of a
projects contract cost to sub-contractors, which includes requirements for use of DBE/WBE/
SBE companies. One of NJTs most important, and time critical construction projects, the Mass
Transit Tunnel (MTT), is being constructed as a DB project. In June 2009, the MTT project was
estimated to cost $8.7 billion. They are offering innovative stipends of up to $375,000 to each
firm that submits a responsive contract proposal and sealed bid. The stipend is expected to
increase competition and thus reduce the cost to the public. The stipend also entitles NJT to the
rights of all submitted designs so they can request that design elements and innovations from
unsuccessful bids be incorporated into the final design.

26

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
design-build survey

Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) currently does not have specific legislative authority to
use DB. However, the states Department of General Services does have DB authority and
PennDOT operates under their authority. According to PennDOTs survey responses, they
have completed 77 DB projects and have another 200 projects currently in progress. However,
PennDOT uses a modified DB process that they call Modified Turnkey. This is a hybrid DB
method because the department conducts a much larger portion of project design (up to 40%).
The Modified Turnkey approach allows the department to do the majority of the environmental,
right-of-way, utility and preliminary design before the contractor is selected. However, many
would argue that this is not a true DB process since a large portion of the design is done before
the contractor is involved. The PennDOT process can be considered a hybrid DB method.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

27

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
design-build survey

28

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
db examples of innovation and challenge

IV: DB EXAMPLES of Innovation and challenge

Throughout the United States, transportation departments have been using DB as a project
delivery method. This section summarizes some unique DB projects. These projects represent
the innovation and challenges that are associated with DB. Appendix C is a table of lessons
learned from the FHWAs Design-Build effectiveness report (FHWA 2006). The FHWA
surveyed their entire Special Experimental Project 14 (SEP-14): Alternative Contracting
applicants for feedback on their respective DB projects. Since 1990, the FHWA has allowed
state DOTs to use DB (and other experimental contracting methods) after applying for SEP14 permission. This enabled the FHWA to track the success or failure of DB projects. The
FHWA no longer requires SEP-14 permission since DB has been shown suitable for use in
transportation projects.
Summaries of two contrasting examples of DB projects are provided below. The first project,
the Washington Bypass Bridge in North Carolina, is an example of DB innovation. Even though
environmental permitting may be a concern in DB, this contracting method also allows for
innovation in finding minimal impact solutions. The second project, dormitory construction
at the University of Connecticut, is an example of a DB contracting failure that is provided
to understand why DB failed at UConn. Specifics as to why this project failed and lessons
ConnDOT should learn from this experience were obtained through interviews with UConn
staff. These two examples were chosen to show how DB can be extremely successful when
appropriate projects are selected, but can have major challenges and potential failure if not
managed carefully.

North Carolina: Washington Bypass Bridge

The US 17 Washington Bypass was Beaufort Countys first DB project (Figure 5). Construction
on the bypass started in March of 2007. The roadway alignment required that a threemile-long bridge be built over an extensive wetland area. To streamline the construction
sequencing, reduce the construction costs, minimize short- and long-term wetland impacts due
to construction of the bridge, a top down construction method was used. This innovative
approach was possible due to collaboration between contractor and designer. Two custombuilt, overhead, self-launching truss systems were able to drive piles, erect the bent caps and
girders, and enable the deck to be poured from the gantry system. This system eliminated the
need to erect a temporary work bridge which would have further impacted the wetlands. Unlike
traditional pile-driving, this is a semi-automated approach with a machine that drives piles, and
then creates the bridge afterward (ENR, 2008). While environmental permitting and regulations
can make DB projects challenging, the Washington Bypass Bridge project demonstrates that DB
provides opportunities for innovation.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

29

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
db examples of innovation and challenge

Figure 5: North Carolina Washington Bypass Bridge:

Design-Build Innovation
UConns Design-Build Experience
Representatives from the CASE study team interviewed the universitys Engineering
Services department along with others knowledgeable about the UConn DB project to gain
an understanding of UConns DB experience so that ConnDOT can benefit from lessons
learned from UConns experience. The UConn 2000 construction program utilized DB for
several dormitories on UConns Storrs campus. These were Hilltop Apartments, Charter Oak
Apartments and the Husky Village, ranging in cost from $25 million to $30 million each. The
Hilltop and Charter Oak dormitories were originally proposed as Design-Build-Lease projects
by the contractor. At UConns request, these projects were converted to traditional DesignBuild projects. The DB methodology was used due to a housing shortage on Storrs Campus that
created a need to build the dormitories and provide them for use as soon as possible.
In accordance with the terms of the contract, the project architect on the DB team was
responsible for code compliance. This resulted in the contractor having control over code
interpretation. The out-of-state contractor interpreted the Connecticut building code as allowing
code exemptions based on building height. Therefore, the contractor designed all the buildings
under the required height in an attempt to circumvent the building codes. However, this led
to numerous code violations that needed to be fixed at a substantial cost. Water heaters and
furnaces were not properly vented, causing high carbon monoxide levels and odors in living

30

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
db examples of innovation and challenge

areas. Firewalls were also not properly installed and codes involving piping in stairwells were
not followed. All of these violations could have been prevented by preliminary design oversight
by UConn. Our conversations indicated the following:
1. UConn was under pressure to build housing rapidly due to increased enrollment and
need for housing. Dormitories needed to be built before the start of the next academic
year.
2. Performance criteria were not established by UConn during the preliminary phase of
the project. Additionally, since the project was under Connecticuts threshold limits,
the responsibility for and certification of code compliance was the responsibility of the
architect and builder.
3. UConn was short on staff for managing the project and the contractor was trusted to
provide code compliance construction oversight.
4. The originally proposed finance-build-manage project delivery method was an issue
for the state treasurer, as this concept, if implemented, might have had a negative
impact on state bond rating. The manage aspect of the original proposal was rejected;
however, the project was approved as a DB project.
As a result of the issues encountered on these dormitory construction projects, UConn is
legislatively prohibited from using DB in the future. However, this result was not due to a
failure of the DB methodology in general. The following resulted from the UConn DB projects:
1. Code issues drove resistance to DB contracting, and led to prohibition for use of DB by
UConn.
2. Proposed legislation was developed to impose a public building committee on UConn,
which was opposed by UConn.
3. UConn negotiated provisions of the legislation that created two committees:
vv Construction Oversight Committee comprised of UConn Board of Governors,
with public representation. UConn 2000 projects over $500K are subjected to
oversight by this committee.
vv Voluntary Building and Grounds Committee of the UConn Board of Governors
4. State Auditor review of the DB projects resulted in support for proposed creative
solution for UConn 2000, with the understanding that they would not be able to support
DB.
In summary, from the information gathered it appears that the UConn 2000 project issues were
unique and should not be used as a reason for the state to prohibit the use of DB. Understaffing
and inexperience with DB at UConn were two of the main reasons DB was not successful for the
referenced projects. Based on UConns experience, the following should be considered for the
development of a successful DB program:

connecticut academy of science and engineering

31

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
db examples of innovation and challenge

1. establishing clearly defined project performance criteria

2. assuring owner trust and confidence in a qualified contractor team
3. utilizing an in-house architect/engineering team or consultant to assure adherence
with established performance criteria and construction in accordance with owner
expectations

32

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
connecticut considerations for design-build

V: CONNECTICUT ConsideratIons for design-build

The use of DB has been successful in other states. These DB programs have many common
practices that guide implementation to achieve desired outcomes and results. However, in
developing a DB program, a state should consider unique factors such as its transportation
systems, ethical issues in contracting, and political history and culture. This section outlines
current critical issues for ConnDOT to consider in developing and implementing a DB program.
Challenges ConnDOT will need to address include:
Permitting: For projects that require environmental permits, DEP anticipates that project
designs will be virtually completed (approximately 90% complete) prior to issuance of
permits. Under DB, the DEP would need to be able to issue permits without reviewing
completed designs.
Training and Staffing: ConnDOT staff and design/engineering companies and
contractors in the state need to gain experience in DB contracting through training.
This training can be provided by several national DB organizations. ConnDOT needs
to commit dedicated staff to overseeing and supporting DB projects. ConnDOT should
also appoint a DB project manager that oversees all DB projects and is active in project
selection, while the department maintains traditional DBB processes and practices for a
majority of projects.
Contractor Experience: Many Connecticut construction and design/engineering
companies may not have DB contracting experience. However, the Connecticut
Department of Public Works has been using DB for over 17 years so some Connecticut
contractors are familiar with DB. If DB is to succeed, ConnDOT will need to support,
help train and advise contractors on DB risks and methods.
Best Value Contractor Selection: Best value contractor selection includes price and
technical proposal considerations that involves subjectivity in contract award decisions.

Permitting
Environmental permitting, right-of-way, and utility relocation can be significant challenges
in the implementation of DB. Adapting practices for use on DB projects should be considered
to accommodate the shift in project design and construction tasks and responsibilities from
ConnDOT to the DB contractor.
Accordingly, ConnDOT and DEP should review the permitting process to determine if a
process could be developed to meet DEPs needs while at the same time accommodating
ConnDOTs interest in utilizing DB contracting that includes the start of construction prior to
completion of project design. Timely review and granting of permits with known conditions
and requirements is important for the success of DB projects involving environmental
permitting.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

33

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
connecticut considerations for design-build

Training
The development and implementation of a successful DB program will require that ConnDOT
staff, as well as construction contractors and design/engineering companies interested in
undertaking DB projects, become familiar with DB practices and responsibilities. All ConnDOT
staff assigned with DB project responsibilities should receive training appropriate for their
specific discipline as well as for DB program practices in general. Contractors also need training
that will provide them with information and guidance regarding their roles and responsibilities
for proposal development, and design and construction. A cultural change in the way that both
ConnDOT and contractors approach project design, construction, and inspection is needed
to adapt to the change in project roles and responsibilities for DB contracting as compared to
traditional DBB contracting.
ConnDOT should consider dedicating staff to DB projects and assigning a DB manager to
oversee all DB projects. The manager will need to be well versed in the differences between
DB and DBB and the processes and practices required within the department to assure project
success. DB training programs are available from several organizations to assist the department
in planning, implementing and managing its DB program.

Best Value Contractor Selection

The common practice of best value engineering used in DB is a much more subjective
procurement method than selection based on lowest bidder. The subjectivity in best value
engineering can lead to allegations of bid rigging or favoritism, especially when the lowest
bid is not selected. Therefore, the design of a best value contractor selection process needs
to be thorough, transparent and supportable. Involving stakeholders in development of the
procurement process may be helpful.
In an effort to provide transparency, most states that use a best value contractor selection process
use a two-step process. Proposals are submitted in two partsa technical proposal and a sealed
price proposal. Technical proposals are scored first by a department proposal review team. Price
proposals remain sealed until bid opening at a public meeting. The publicly available scoring
system is then used to calculate total proposal rankings with the contractor being selected
based on a combination of technical score and price. The subjectivity of technical scores, which
impacts contractor selection, may provide an opportunity for contract award challenges. While
DB contracts can be awarded on the basis of low bid, this impairs the ability for a department to
benefit from design innovation which has been identified as a key benefit of DB.

34

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
summary of findings, recommendations and concluding remarks

VI: Findings, Recommendations

and concluding remarks
Findings
The following section outlines the key study findings. The findings are divided into groups
based on general DB findings and those that are relevant to Connecticut.

General Design-Build Contracting:

The DB contracting methodology for project delivery has been implemented
successfully by several other states and the federal government. DB is used for both
vertical (buildings) and horizontal (all modes of transportation) projects of varying size,
cost, and complexity.
Use of DB has been shown to save time in project duration, reduce project change
orders, and increase the potential for innovative design.
DB offers a potential for cost savings that could take the form of lower project cost,
reduced construction time, increased project lifespan, reduced environmental impacts,
less inconvenience to the traveling public, fewer lawsuits, fewer change orders, greater
public satisfaction, and cost savings from innovative design that might not have been
considered under DBB.
Most states that utilize DB have not identified a minimum cost threshold for DB
projects.
The insurance industry assumes more risk when bonding DB contractors because the
contractor assumes responsibility for both design and construction. This may result in
sureties being more cautious in bonding contractors for DB projects, leading to bonding
challenges for smaller contractors.
Some states provide stipends to shortlisted companies that submit acceptable project
proposals for consideration.

Design-Build in Connecticut:
ConnDOT uses DBB for all of its projects, except an occasional emergency declaration project.
In-state contractors and engineering/design companies are most familiar with DBB contracting
for transportation projects. Some companies, however, have DB experience on public projects
undertaken on behalf of DPW.
Companies interested in providing construction and engineering/design services for DB
projects should become familiar with DB responsibilities and risks associated with DB
contracting. Construction and engineering/design companies will need to form project
partnerships to qualify as proposers. Effective communication between ConnDOT and
contractors; strategic initial project selection; ConnDOT and contractor staff training; and
connecticut academy of science and engineering

35

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
summary of findings, recommendations and concluding remarks

effective collaboration between contractors and subcontractors will be important for successful
project delivery.
The Connecticut Department of Public Works (DPW) has used DB contracting
methodology successfully for over 15 years for vertical construction. DPW reports
having best success on projects where performance requirements are rather simple and
straightforward. Prisons, dormitories and courthouses were identified as examples of
project types that have been successful under DB.
ConnDOT currently uses a process similar to DB contracting for emergency projects.
A DB school construction pilot program was created by action of the General Assembly.
It provided for the use of DB for several school construction projects. Only one school
was built under this program. The Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) used DB
to construct a new school in Hartford. CREC created a DB support team to oversee the
project and contractor. The site was difficult and much work was done upfront in the
preliminary design phase in preparation for selection of the DB contractor team. The
project was considered a success. In general, with regard to school districts considering
DB for projects, there was a lack of understanding about what DB contracting was, and
therefore not much interest by others in participating in the pilot program. As a result of
a report produced on the initial pilot by the Connecticut Department of Education, the
pilot program ended and was not renewed, and DB has not developed into an option
used by school districts for projects.

Design-Build Findings Critical to Connecticut:

Most entities award DB projects on a best value basis that considers both technical and
cost aspects of project proposals. Many states that utilize a best value selection method
have generally awarded projects to the lowest bidder.
Transportation departments in many of the states who use DB have assigned staff who
are dedicated to DB and a DB program office within the department.
Use of DB has been shown to save time in project duration, reduce project change
orders, and increase the potential for innovative design.
DB requires the development of a clearly defined scope of work before conducting
an initial RFP to shortlist contractors. Owners may complete up to 30% of a projects
design, with the majority completing less than 15% of the design. Leaving more of the
design to the design-builder provides more opportunity for innovation in the final
design.
Some states have established special environmental permitting processes when utilizing
DB.
Environmental permitting is a challenging issue that needs to be carefully considered
for DB projects because of the risk that is assumed by the contractor. Maintaining
ongoing communication and coordination regarding environmental issues and
permitting between a state DOT and state and federal environmental agencies are
important factors for DB projects.

36

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
summary of findings, recommendations and concluding remarks

Brief Statement of Primary Conclusion

ConnDOT should be able to utilize the DB contracting methodology for design and construction
of transportation-related projects. It is noted that DB is not entirely new to ConnDOT, as the
commissioner has the authority to modify or eliminate the bidding process for emergency
declaration projects. The General Assembly should adopt legislation permitting use of DB
contracting as an option for transportation projects. The legislation should require ConnDOT
to periodically report on its experience in utilizing DB contracting to the Transportation
Committee and other relevant committees of the General Assembly for the purposes of
determining the value and benefits of this method of contracting to the state and the public.

Recommendations
Based on the research conducted, the CASE study committee offers the following
recommendations for the use of DB contracting by ConnDOT for transportation projects in
Connecticut.

Design-Build Project Selection:

A minimum project cost threshold should not be required. All projects should be eligible
for DB consideration.
DB projects should be awarded on a best value basis that includes consideration of the
quality of a contractors technical proposal as well as project cost. Specific formulas
for best value proposal analysis have been developed by others and will be useful in
formulating the Connecticut model.
ConnDOT should develop a process, similar to those used by other state DOTs, for
identifying projects that are suitable candidates for DB. While initially it is likely
that only a small number of projects would be selected as DB projects, all proposed
ConnDOT projects should be evaluated for selection as DB projects.

Connecticut Design-Build Methods:

ConnDOT should identify staff to develop, implement, maintain, and lead the
departments DB program. Training should be provided to ConnDOT staff who
will need an understanding of the DB methodology to assure project and program
success. Training should not be limited to dedicated DB staff, but would extend to staff
from all areas of the department with project related responsibilities such as design,
construction, inspection, properties/rights of way, and contracting.
ConnDOT staff should develop an understanding of risks assumed by the department
and contractor for DB projects. DB project contractors assume more risk than for typical
DBB projects. ConnDOT project delivery practices should be adapted to support the
responsibilities assumed by the DB contractor, while at the same time protecting the
interests and risk assumed by the department.
Several state transportation agencies such as New York DOT (https://www.nysdot.gov/
divisions/engineering/design/dqab/design-build/dbpm) and North Carolina DOT
connecticut academy of science and engineering

37

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
summary of findings, recommendations and concluding remarks

(http://www.ncdot.org/doh/PRECONSTRUCT/altern/design_ build/policy07.pdf)
have developed DB procedure manuals. ConnDOT should develop a DB procedure
manual that will serve as a guide for DB project operations. This manual will also serve as
an educational outreach tool for department staff, as well as a means to inform potential
contractors of how ConnDOT will manage DB projects.
Implementation of ConnDOTs DB program should include outreach to both
engineering consulting companies and contractors, including smaller and mid-size
contractors, to inform them about the DB contracting program and process.
For DB projects that involve third-parties for environmental permitting (such as DEP,
EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers); utility relocation (utility companies); or system
scheduling (such as AMTRAK and Metro-North), as well as for other issues, it is
suggested that these entities be involved early in the project concept development
process so as to limit the risk assumed by DB contractors that are offered the
opportunity to submit project proposals.
ConnDOT should incorporate stipends into the project selection process. The issuing
of stipends should follow federal policy 23 CFR 636.112. All shortlisted proposers that
submit acceptable proposals should receive compensation for their design/proposal
efforts. In return, ConnDOT would have ownership rights to the designs prepared by
all proposers and have the ability to incorporate proposed design elements into the final
design regardless of the contractor selected.
Key criteria for consideration in DB project selection should include the need for design
innovation and reduction in project duration. ConnDOTs DB program should provide
flexibility to allow for design innovation, since that is one of the key advantages of DB.

Future Use of Design-Build in Connecticut

Vertical construction (buildings) and horizontal transportation construction projects
should be considered for DB contracting.
Vertical construction projects should be considered as a possibility for initial DB
contracting. DPWs experience utilizing DB contracting for its projects should provide
valuable lessons learned in the Connecticut context for this type of project, as well as
contractor familiarity with DB contracting.
Horizontal construction should not be excluded from any pilot projects.
Initially, DB should be utilized on projects that have little or no environmental impact.
However, it is suggested that DB contracting be used on more complex projects,
including those with environmental issues, after ConnDOT and the other agencies
and contractors involved gain some experience with DB, especially where a project is
expected to benefit from innovative project design.

Concluding Remarks
The Design-Build contracting methodology for transportation projects represents a significant
change in the way projects are managed and delivered by transportation agencies. An important
aspect of the DB contracting methodology is developing collaboration and the business

38

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
summary of findings, recommendations and concluding remarks

relationship between the project engineering/architect and construction contractor. The

interaction of the construction contractor with the designer working as a team represents a
culture shift from the traditional design and construction project delivery methodology (DBB).
Responsibilities of the DB contractor team demands that the project team work together to
resolve project design and constructability issues to deliver a quality product in an efficient
manner.
When there is a need to perform quickly on projects, as in emergenciesowners put teams
together to get the job done. Complex problems are always solved more efficiently and with
optimal solutions through collaboration. Collaboration occurs throughout a DB project, not only
within the DB design/construction team, but also with the owner.
DB provides for single source responsibility with incorporation of opportunity for innovation.
A well managed process is essential to protect the interests of the owner. To assure project
quality and success, owner oversight and inspection are critical to protect the states interests.
Also, the owner must trust the DB contractor team to deliver a project on-time and on-budget
while maintaining their profit margin. This requires communication in a seamless system for
optimum efficiency for project design and construction with practices that are designed for
timely decision-making to keep projects on schedule and within budget.
While currently many transportation agencies use DB for only a small percentage of projects,
the DB method should be considered as an additional contracting tool when the benefits
warrant its use. ConnDOTs implementation of DB will require a commitment of staff
resources and change in the departments procedures and practices to accommodate the special
requirements of design-build contracting.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

39

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
summary of findings, recommendations and concluding remarks

40

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
acknowledgements

VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study benefited from the cooperation, support and input of the following individuals and
the organizations they represent. Their interest and effort in this study are greatly appreciated
by the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering.

CONNDOT

GUEST SPEAKERS

Richard B. Armstrong
Principal Engineer
Consultant Design State Roads

Bruce Bergstrom
Vice-President and Regional Surety Manager
Arch Insurance Group

Scott A. Hill, PE
Transportation Principal Engineer
Manager of State Design

Bruce Bockstael, AIA

Chief Architect
Dept. of Public Works

Theodore Nezames, PE
Principal Engineer Facilities Design

Teresa Bruton, PE
Transportation Program Management
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation

James H. Norman, PE
Engineering Administrator
Mark D. Rolfe, PE
Transportation District Engineer - District 3

INDUSTRY CONTACTS
Donald Shubert
Connecticut Construction Industries
Association
Parker Williams
Former Administrator,
Maryland State Highway Administration
Vice President & Director of Sales
ACS, Inc.

Bradley L. Mallory
President and Chief Executive Officer
Michael Baker Corporation (formerly of
PennDOT)
William Meier, Jr.
Director of Special Projects
The Lane Construction Corporation
Christine Mizioch
Manager, Design Build Program
MassHighway
Raymond Oneglia
Vice Chairman of the Board
O&G Industries, Inc.
Gerald Yakowenko
Contract Administration Group, Office of
Program Administration
Federal Highway Administration

connecticut academy of science and engineering

41

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

42

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
references

VIII: REFERENCES
Cho, Aileen. Pile-Driving Gantry System Debuts in North Carolina. Engineering News Record.
05/07/2008. 2008, VOL 260; NUMB 16, page 15.
Ernzen, Jim, Williams, Ron, and Brisk, Debra: Arizona Department of Transportation. DesignBuild vs. Design-Bid-Build: Comparing Cost and Schedule. Excerpted from a presentation
made at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
January 2004.
FHWA. 2006. Design-Build Effectiveness Study As Required by TEA-21 Section 1307(f).
Federal Highway Administration. Washington DC. January, 2006.
FHWA. 2009. Current Design-Build Practices for Transportation Projects: A Compilation of
Practices by the Transportation Design-Build Users Group. Federal Highway Administration.
Washington DC. June, 2009.
Hill, Elisabeth. 2005. Design-Build: An Alternative Construction System. Legislative
Analysts Office. 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. February 3, 2005.
NYDOT. 2003. Design-build Procurement Process Report. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff
Quade and Douglas Inc. for the New York Department of Transportation. March, 2003.
Strong, K. and C. Juliana. 2005. Design-Build Procurement Process. Construction Update.
June 2005.
WSDOT, 2004. Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Development. Washington
State Department of Transportation. June 20, 2004.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

43

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications

44

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

APPENDIX A:
WISCONSIN (WSDOT) RISK ALLOCATION MATRIX
3.3 Develop Project Scope
A design-build project differs from a traditional project in that the project team must establish the final
project expectations, goals, and desired quality at the outset. Early in the project, all team members,
stakeholders, and leadership should agree on project goals, quality, and the desired outcome of the project.

3.4 Project Risk Allocation Matrix

On each design-build project, the team must determine how far to carry the preliminary design. From
extensive discussions between WSDOT and the design-build industry, contractors, and design consultants,
it is apparent that development of a risk allocation matrix is the key to making this determination.
Early in the project, the design team needs to begin to identify potential risks associated with the project.
Assign responsibility for each of these risks either to WSDOT or to the design-builder. This is not a onetime task. The project team should continually revisit it as more information becomes available about the
project. Utilize the risk allocation matrix throughout development and implementation of the project.
This matrix will not only govern which party is responsible for a given risk, but it will also help the
project team determine how far to advance each technical element within the preliminary design during
development of the RFP.
For reference, an example risk allocation matrix is shown below. This allocation matrix will need to
be tailored to each individual project. The allocation of risk on this matrix was determined through
discussions within WSDOT, as well as with the construction and consulting industry. This risk allocation
matrix is not intended to be all-inclusive. The project team will have to carefully review all elements that
could impact the specific project and tailor the matrix to fit the project. The matrix should be open for
review throughout the entire RFP development process.

connecticut academy of science and engineering

45

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

46

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

connecticut academy of science and engineering

47

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

48

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

connecticut academy of science and engineering

49

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

50

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

connecticut academy of science and engineering

51

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

52

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

connecticut academy of science and engineering

53

54

How does your agency quantify or

measure the benefits of its DesignBuild program?

Open-Ended Response

Other (please identify)

If yes, please provide statute

number(s), effective date(s) of
legislation and internet link(s).
Does your state's legislation include Response
If yes, what is your legislation's
a minimum project cost threshold
threshold?
for a project to be considered for
Which of the following are benefits Time savings
Cost savings
your agency has achieved with
Improved budget control
Design-Build? Select all that
Reduction in staff workload
apply.
Innovative design
Reduced change orders
Improved Public Relations

Comment
How many Design-Build projects
has your agency completed? How
Response
Does your state have legislation
specifically for transportation DesignBuild projects?

Completed
In progress

Please identify the modes of

transportation your agency is
responsible for:

How long has your agency used

Design-Build for Transportation
projects?

Agency

Highways
Public Transportation
Rail
Buses
Ports
Airports
Response

Survey Question

Generic comparision to design-bidbuild

Innovative design
Reduced change orders

Don't know
Time savings
Cost savings
Improved budget control

N/A

5
5
YES

10+ years

Public Transportation
Rail
Buses

NJ TRANSIT

We are in the process of establishing

metrics for Design-Build projects to
quantify benefits.

Reduction in staff workload

Innovative design
Reduced change orders

Time savings

NO

5-10 years
Our agency has significantly increased
our use of Design-Build during calendar
year 2009.
77
200
NO

Highways

PennDOT, Bureau of Design

1st project advertised May 1998

23
8
YES

10+ years

2
4
YES

5-10 years

Highways

Maryland State Highway Administration

(MSHA)
masshighway

Highways

Through the use of lessons learned

reports after each project.

We track the percent of change orders

compared to the construction value for
each project. The percent of change
orders on design-build projects are
compared to the same on design-bid-build
projects. We have found that on designbuild projects, the amount of change
orders are less than 2% of the
construction value compared to 6% on
our traditional design-bid-build projects.

Pursuant to Maryland State Finance and

Procurement Code Ann. 3-602 (g)(1),
the Maryland General Assembly
authorized the use of Design-Build in
State capital projects. Due to the use of
Federal aid in the construction and
reconstruction of Maryland roads, SHA
use of the Design-Build process is also
governed by the regulations promulgated
at 23 CFR Parts 627, et seq. by the United
States Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
Additional regulation is pursuant to State
procurement provisions set forth in the
relevant sections of the Maryland State
S
3410 effective
ff i date
d
dP
i l off the
h
State S
Statute 161
161.3410
off Fi
Finance and
Procurement A
Article
legislation: 2001
Annotated Code and the Code of
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/ Maryland Regulations (COMAR).
db_law.pdf
www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comar.aspx chapter 149a
NO
NO
YES
$5 million for non-accelerated bridge
program projects
Time savings
Time savings
Time savings
Cost savings
Improved budget control
Reduction in staff workload
Innovative design
Innovative design
Innovative design
Reduced change orders
Reduced change orders
Reduced change orders
Improved Public Relations
Improved Public Relations
lower cost growth (more project cost
certainty)

4 low bid; 10 best-value

3 best value
YES

10+ years

Highways

Mn/DOT

APPENDIX b:
design-build state survey responses

Colorado DOT

We have not done that yet as a

Department. It is a case by case
analysis

Innovative design
Reduced change orders

Time savings

CRS Part 14, Article 1 of Title 43 Policy

2 of CCR 601-15
NO

5
3
YES

Airports
5-10 years

Highways

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

connecticut academy of science and engineering

Agency

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.
No experience with this type of project.
No experience with this type of project.
No experience with this type of project.
No experience with this type of project.

Port - Replacements

Port - Rehabilitation

Port - New Construction

Buildings - Replacements

Buildings - Rehabilitation

Buildings - New Construction

connecticut academy of science and engineering

Open-Ended Response
How important is it to have the
continuum aspect (one person or
entity overseeing a project from
Response
start to finish)?
In general, what is your agency's
track record in administering Design- Response
Build projects from beginning to
end?
Comments
What percentage of design is
completed before a project goes out
Response
to bid?
In general on a Design-Build
project, how much design is done in
Response
house?
>40%

>15%

>15%

>15%

>40%

>15%

>15%

>15%

Extremely Important
Important
Majority have been successful but a few Majority have been successful but a few
have been problematic
have been problematic

Colorado DOT

Each Region manages their own project

We have an Innovative Contracting
Program Manager in a centralized HQ
locations that normalizes processes,
shares experiences, educates, gives
advice and coordinates between regions

YES

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

Very Successful
Very Successful

No experience with this type of project.

Successful

Very Successful

Very Successful

0%

>15%

One contractor went bankrupt unrelated

to the project.

>30%

>30%

Relatively important
Important
Majority have been successful but a few
have been problematic
All have been major successes

Our agency has a division that oversees

our design-build program. It is comprised
of a divison chief and 3 staff members
who assist the Project Engineer in the
development of the design-build
procurement documents and oversees the Manager for the program (Christine
process from start to finish.
Mizioch) and reporting staff.

We have learned a great deal about our

process after each design-build project.

Relatively important
Majority have been successful but a few
have been problematic

YES

YES

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

Very Successful

All design build projects are run by the

project specific DB Project Manager with
design manager and construction
manager underneath him/her. The DM
and CM in turn have personnel working
for them depending on the type of
project.

Successful

Successful

Successful

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

No experience with this type of project.

Very Successful
Very Successful

Very Successful

YES

Successful except for lawsuits by

contracts (on very large projects)

All have been major successes

Important

For large d/b projects a dedicated

project team is assigned. For
smaller projects, a PM is assigned
with appropriate matrix support.

No experience with this type of project.

Airport - New Construction

NO
Our District offices develop the designbuild contracts and then submit to our
Central Office for review by a DesignBuild Pro-Team. The Pro-Team is
comprised of personnel from various
design and construction units to ensure
contract documents are comprehensive
and biddable.

No experience with this type of project.

Airport - Rehabilitation

Does your agency have an in-house

Design-Build manager or facilitator
Response
to manage the process?
Describe your agency's
organizational structure for DesignBuild projects.

No experience with this type of project.

Airport - Replacements

No experience with this type of project.

Very Successful

Very Successful
Very Successful
Successful

No experience with this type of project.

Very Successful
Very Successful

Successful
No experience with this type of project.
Successful

Maryland State Highway Administration

(MSHA)
masshighway

Very Successful

Mn/DOT

Very Successful

Successful

PennDOT, Bureau of Design

Successful
Very Successful

YES

NJ TRANSIT

Bridge - Rehabilitation
Bridge - New Construction

For the following modes/types of

Highway - Replacements
projects, please indicate the success
Highway - Rehabilitation
of your agency's Design-Build
program.
Highway - New Construction
Bridge - Replacements

Survey Question

APPENDIX b (continued)

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

55

56

RFQ
RFP
Best Value
Lowest Bid

What is your agency's selection

process for the Design-Build
contractor? Select all that apply.

If YES, please explain:

Response

Please provide any additional

comments that you feel would be
benficial to Connecticut in its
establishment of a Design-Build
program or Design-Build legislation.

How would you rate labor union

support of your agency's DesignBuild program?

Open-Ended Response

If unsupportive, which unions

opposed Design-Build?

If YES, please explain:

Response

If YES, please explain:

Does your agency provide staff
Response
training regarding your Design-Build
program?

Indifferent

NO

NO

YES
For large contracts 50% of contract
must be subcontracted...as weel as
DBE/WBE/SBE requirements.
No Impact

NO

NO

Best Value

NJ TRANSIT

If YES, please explain.

Response

Comments
p
In developing
agency's
p g your
y
g
y Designg Response
Build program were local
construction organizations taken
into consideration as stakeholders?

Has your agency's use of DesignBuild had an impact on small and

mid-size contractors?

Has your agency made an effort to

assure that small and mid-size
contractors have an opportunity to
bid on projects?

If YES, please explain:

Does your agency utilize a modified Response
process for other permits on DesignBuild projects (i.e. ROW, Hasmat,
STC, etc.)?

Other (please specify)

Does your agency utilize a modified Response
environmental permitting process
for Design-Build projects?

Agency

Survey Question

We begin the applications for as many

permits as possible by identifying the
most impacts from the perferred
alternative.

YES

RFQ
RFP
Best Value
Lowest Bid

Mn/DOT

Low-Bid method is effective at producing

time savings. Additional innovation in
Design can be produced when using the
Best Value approach. Any proposed
legislation should provide for a 2 step
Best Value Approach to allow shortlisting
of proposers.

PennDOT worked closely with the

Associated Pennsylvania Constructors to
develop the manual for Design-Build
projects.
YES
Training sessions held with all District
Offices when origninal D/B manual
released; subsequent training will be
held to discuss modifications to current
policy.
Indifferent

The use of D/B contracts has allowed

PennDOT to substantially increase the
number of contracts bid, thus increasing
the potential for small and mid-size
contractors to secure contracts.
YES

No Impact

NO

NO

Stipulated Sum or Fixed Fee

NO

RFQ
RFP
Best Value
Lowest Bid

Projects of all size are considered as

candidates.
No Impact

YES

NO

NO

Best Value

Maryland State Highway Administration

(MSHA)
masshighway

On a project specific basis, depending on

the experience of the staff with designbuild.
Indifferent
As long as prevailing wage rates are
met, the workers don't have to be
unionized.

If you utilize consultants when developing

projects, the potential can exist for
conflict of interest (coi) in the context of
design-build documents. Even if it is a
perceived coi, bid protests may be based
on a coi. We publish within the RFP a list
of firms that are excluded from teaming.
Maryland has legislation that defines the
parameters of what can exclude a firm
from teaming with a contracting enity.
See COMAR 21.06.01.01 & 21.06.02.03
www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comar.aspx

MSHA has an inhouse training program

that includes a session on Design-Build.
MSHA also has developed a Design-Build
Manual to be used as a resource.
Indifferent

Procurement training and contract

implementation
Moderately supportive

No feedback provided
YES
YES
Early on MSHA held workshops with
representitives from our contracting
community and our engineering
Minnesota's Association of General
community in order to gain feedback. As
Contractors was involved and continue to we try different procurement methods, we
be involved as scoring members and
will always seek input from those same
through industry meetings/workshops.
stakeholders.
CIM was an integral part.
YES
YES
YES

We have had more small and mid-size

contractors gain the experience of
working on design-build projects.
YES

YES
We have procured a variety of projects
using design build from small $1 million
PennDOT issues contracts of various
sizes to ensure inclusion of small and mid- sign replacement to $234 million major
river crossing.
size contracts.
Positive Impact
Positive Impact

YES
Environmental Clearance is obtained
based an anticipated area of impact prior
to bidding D/B project. Actual permitting
may be included as Design Activities in
D/B contract.
YES
R/W - Conditional R/W clearance issued
to advertise project (traditional projects
require all R/W to be acquired prior to
bidding). R/W acquisition activities and
R/W plan preparation are included as
Design Activities in D/B contract.
PennDOT still acquires all R/W, even for
D/B projects.
YES

Lowest Bid

PennDOT, Bureau of Design

APPENDIX b (continued)

Colorado DOT

It's the trend of the future. Use it!

Misc. D-B training courses and

conferences
Indifferent

Colorado Contractor's Association

YES

YES

Constant coordination and industry

review with the Contractor's Association
Positive Impact

YES

NO

Modified Design-Build (Pass/Fail-Low

bid)
NO

RFQ
RFP
Best Value

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

APPENDIX C:
Conclusions and Recommendations from FHWAs
2005 Design-Build Effectiveness Study
Reprinted with Permission

connecticut academy of science and engineering

57

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the lessons learned by survey respondents and changes planned for
their agencies design-build programs. The chapter also presents the conclusions of the research
team regarding the prospective use of design-build project delivery and the teams
recommendations for improving the use of design-build contracting in the nations highway
development program.
AGENCY SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING DESIGN-BUILD PROGRAMS
In responding to the study surveys, the design-build project managers shared their thoughts
regarding lessons learned during the SEP-14 program. The research team also received
numerous comments and suggestions regarding changes the surveyed agencies have made in
their design-build programs and suggestions to further improve these programs, based in part on
these lessons learned. This section summarizes the comments and suggestions for improvement.
Design-Build Program Lessons Learned Based on Project Surveys
The project managers who completed design-build project surveys noted many lessons learned
from these projects. Key lessons included:
Carefully choosing projects appropriate for design-build
Adequately preparing to procure and manage a design-build project;
Properly phasing the project by timing permitting, environmental clearance, and right-of-way
acquisition prior to award of design-build contract;
Leaving design guidelines loose, with performance criteria designed to drive the creativity
of the design-build team; and
Maintaining communications between the contracting agency and design-build team.
The full digest of lessons learned comments is provided in Exhibit V.1.
Design-Build Program Improvements Based on Program Surveys
Design-build project managers responding to the surveys reported having undertaken or proposed
several major changes to improve the effectiveness of their agencies design-build programs.
Changes included amending quality assurance and quality control, better defining program
guidelines, and working more closely with design and construction contractors to craft a better
program. Several agencies reported that their design-build program was reassessed on an
ongoing basis as projects moved through the process. Florida DOTs response was typical:
Design-build is a continually evolving concept in which we incorporate changes
and make improvements with the completion of every job.
Actual changes that have already been undertaken as reported in the program surveys are
summarized in Exhibit V.2, and those that are proposed are summarized in Exhibit V.3.
2005 Design-Build Effectiveness Study

58

V-1

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

Exhibit V.1 Summary of Lessons Learned from Design-Build Projects

Guidelines
Cooperation with Industry
Performance criteria in lieu of prescribed specifications Process works best with experienced
is key to efficiency of the design- build process
contractors and designers
Project criteria should state project goals
Contracting community requires education
on conceptual estimating practices,
especially the subcontracting community
Project Selection
Project Phasing
It is relatively simple to use design-build to
Right-of-way acquisition required prior
replace existing similar construction
to letting design-build contract
Permitting and geotechnical borings prior
May not be well-suited for small projects such as
to letting place contractors at ease and
small bridges
facilitate process
May be better suited for roadway construction rather
than ITS projects
Ideal method for road widening under traffic
Project Management
Preliminary Engineering
Co-locating project team for the entire duration of
Development of original documents may
project facilitates coordination
have stifled contractor creativity and
innovation
Establish and maintain open communications
Carefully consider the appropriate level
channels, including regular progress meetings
of design to complete prior to letting
Establish expectations of all parties prior to
contract
beginning work
Over-prescribing design details or
Facilitate cooperative working relationship between
construction techniques may stifle
contracting agency and design-build team
potential innovation
Recognize criticality of schedule
Focus technical scoring of proposals on
Provide efficient management structure
areas that the agency values
Establish meaningful incentives and penalties
Third-Parties
Effort and time to tie down third party
(railroads, utilities, local agencies)
commitments prior to project award is
essential

Owner Participation
There is major effort required of the
project contracting agency, so designbuild should be used only when it provides
the most effective delivery means
Successful management of design- build
may require a new approach to project
administration by the contracting agency

Contract Language and Definitions

Change Orders
To ensure the contracting agency receives the expected Establish funding responsibility for any
product within budget, clear and concise performance
unforeseen changes required in project
specifications are essential to the success of a designdesign and construction
build contract
Risk Allocation
Allocate risks where they are best managed

Procurement
Design-build is not well suited to low- bid
selection method

Source: D-B project survey: Q18, 49 responses

2005 Design-Build Effectiveness Study

connecticut academy of science and engineering

V-2

59

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
summary of findings, recommendations and concluding remarks

Exhibit V.2 Summary of Actual Design-Build Program Changes

Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Better define quality control and who
provides it. Third-party contracting of
quality assurance
Change in QA/QC responsibility, with
contracting agency responsible for
quality assurance and contractor
responsible for quality control, in lieu of
previous arrangement in which
contractor had responsibility for QA
and QC and contracting agency had
discretionary sampling and testing
privileges
Project Selection
Streamlining selection process

Cooperation with Industry

Agency periodically conducts design-build
workshops with industry partners,
contractors and designers to refine
delivery processes. Recent successes
include continuity of agency selection
team, debriefing process, agreement to
include alternate technical concept, and
one-on-one communication process
during RFP stage.

Preliminary Engineering
Reduce level of preliminary
engineering and transfer this work to
design-build contractors
Environmental Monitoring
Placement of environmental monitors
(agents of the state) on
environmentally sensitive projects to
ensure compliance with permit
requirements of the contractor
Contract Language and Definitions
Standardized contract language for
design-build procurement, including
general and project-specific
requirements
Refinements of project scope
definitions and standard specifications

Procurement Regulations
Changed state statutes to permit bestvalue approach
Achieved regulatory authority to
implement design-build
Stipends
Use of stipends to offset cost of
preliminary design for unsuccessful
proposers
Utilities
Incorporation of utilities design and
construction into contract documents,
making it a requirement of the designbuild team
Baseline Information
Providing upfront information such as
soils, geotechnical, permit, and right-ofway information
Standardization of plan package content
based on 30 percent plan details,
including line, grade, and typical section
for roadway and/or type, size, and
location for structures

Risk Allocation
DOT works closely with AGC and
ACEC to develop more focused risk
allocation, used by agency to develop
initial plans as well as proposal

Source: D-B program survey: Q24, 27 responses

2005 Design-Build Effectiveness Study

60

V-3

connecticut academy of science and engineering

the design-build contracting methodology for transportation projects:

a review of practice and evaluation for connecticut applications
appendices

Exhibit V.3 Summary of Proposed Design-Build Program Changes

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Continued refinement of QA/QC plan

Cooperation with Industry

Project Selection

Improved guidance for when to utilize

innovative contracting methods
Incorporate more structures into
program, and evaluate use of designbuild on mega-projects, smaller
projects, and bridge and ITS projects

Re-establishing partnership efforts with

DOT, FHWA, contractors, and consulting
engineers
Procurement Regulations

Considering deleting the Federal

statutory definition of a qualified project
so that SEP-14 will no longer be
necessary for design-build projects that
comply with FHWAs regulation.

Project Management

Bring construction engineering

management in-house

Stipends

Development of a formal process for

stipend determination

Contract Language and Definitions

Clarifying third-party and quality

assurance requirements
Refinement of contract language
based on feedback from the
contracting industry, consultants,
FHWA, and DOT personnel

Risk Allocation

Revise program documents to make

easier to use
Continued refinement of contract
template

Move all responsibility for project

decisions, quality control, engineering,
and inspection to the contractor, who
would hold a comprehensive warranty to
cover workmanship repairs and defects.
Contractor would be held accountable for
the entire project (i.e. no shared
responsibilities). Difficult to accomplish
within the culture of the transportation
and insurance industries

Source: D-B program survey: Q25, 25 responses

Among project survey respondents, 33 percent reported that their projects could have been more
successful with what they know now about the design-build process. Suggestions for further
improving the design-build process included:
More careful selection of projects appropriate for design-build
Better definition of the contracting agencies and contractors project scopes
Creation of more accurate bidding documents
Selection of design-build consortium on a best-value rather than low-bid basis
Modification of the quality control procedures
Development of a procedure to review project design and manage construction issues

2005 Design-Build Effectiveness Study

connecticut academy of science and engineering

V-4

61

Major Studies of the Academy

2009
A Study of the Feasibility of Utilizing Waste
Heat from Central Electric Power Generating
Stations and Potential Applications

Independent Monitor Report: Implementation

of the UCHC Study Recommendations
2008
Preparing for Connecticuts Energy Future

Applying Transportation Asset

Management in Connecticut

A Study of Weigh and Inspection Station

Technologies

2005

Assessment of a Connecticut Technology

Seed Capital Fund/Program

Demonstration and Evaluation of Hybrid

Diesel-Electric Transit Buses

An Evaluation of Asbestos Exposures in

Occupied Spaces

2004

Long Island Sound Symposium: A Study of

A Study of Railcar Lavatories and Waste

A Needs-Based Analysis of the University of

Connecticut Health Center Facilities Plan
2007

A Study of the Feasibility of Utilizing Fuel Cells

to Generate Power for the New Haven Rail
Line

Guidelines for Developing a Strategic Plan for

Connecticuts Stem Cell Research Program

2006
Energy Alternatives and Conservation

Benthic Habitats

Management Systems

2003

An Analysis of Energy Available from

Agricultural Byproducts, Phase II: Assessing

the Energy Production Processes

Study Update: Bus Propulsion Technologies

Available in Connecticut
2002

A Study of Fuel Cell Systems

Transportation Investment Evaluation
Methods and Tools

Evaluating the Impact of Supplementary

An Analysis of Energy Available from

Advanced Communications Technologies

Preparing for the Hydrogen Economy:

A Study of Bus Propulsion Technologies in

Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics Educational Programs

Transportation

Improving Winter Highway Maintenance:

Case Studies for Connecticuts Consideration

Information Technology Systems for Use in

Incident Management and Work Zones

An Evaluation of the Geotechnical

Engineering and Limited Environmental

Assessment of the Beverly Hills Development,
New Haven, Connecticut

Agricultural Byproducts, Phase 1: Defining the

Latent Energy Available
2001

Connecticut

2000

Efficacy of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle

Emissions Testing Program

Indoor Air Quality in Connecticut Schools

Study of Radiation Exposure from the

Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering

179 Allyn Street, Suite 512, Hartford, CT 06103
Phone or Fax: 860-527-2161
e-mail: acad@ctcase.org
web: www.ctcase.org

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering

The Connecticut Academy is a non-profit institution patterned after
the National Academy of Sciences to identify and study issues and
technological advancements that are or should be of concern to the
state of Connecticut. It was founded in 1976 by Special Act of the
Connecticut General Assembly.

Vision
The Connecticut Academy will foster an environment in Connecticut
where scientific and technological creativity can thrive and contribute
to Connecticut becoming a leading place in the country to live, work
and produce for all its citizens, who will continue to enjoy economic
well- being and a high quality of life.

Mission Statement
The Connecticut Academy will provide expert guidance on science
and technology to the people and to the State of Connecticut, and
promote its application to human welfare and economic well being.

Goals
Provide information and advice on science and technology to

the government, industry and people of Connecticut.

Initiate activities that foster science and engineering education

of the highest quality, and promote interest in science and

engineering on the part of the public, especially young people.
Provide opportunities for both specialized and interdisciplinary

discourse among its own members, members of the broader

technical community, and the community at large.

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering

179 Allyn Street, Suite 512, Hartford, CT 06103
Phone or Fax: 860-527-2161
e-mail: acad@ctcase.org
web: www.ctcase.org