1. Minnesota Department of Transportation
Design-Build Introduction Program
Ron Williams, PE
State Construction Engineer
Arizona Department of Transportation
November 30, 2000

2. Arizona’s New Design-Build Law and Experience

3. Purpose
The Arizona Department of Transportation Desires to Have the Design-Build Process Available to Use Whenever an Opportunity or Need Arises to Construct a Project Quickly to Reduce Public Inconvenience.

4. Arizona Department of Transportation Design-Build Procurement and Administration Policy
To establish the department’s process for procuring and administering the highway design or facility and construction services within one contract. The process will clearly delineate all known data to keep the unknown risk transfer to the design-build firm to a minimum, thereby producing the most economical project. The purpose of the process is to provide a substantial fiscal benefit or accelerated delivery schedule for transportation projects.
Partnering — Working together to solve problems is a must for design-build to be successful.

5. Why Use Design-Build?
Speed!! To Complete a Project Where There is Need for Immediate Improvement
Example:
Large Traffic Volume Increases
Safety
Area Growth
Over-Loaded Freeways
Funding Must Be Available in the Five-Year Program for the Design-Build Contracting Method to Be Considered

6. Reasons for Design-Build
Earlier Completion
Permits Phase Work
Allows Concurrent Operations
Encourages Joint Contractor/Engineer Planning
Permits Innovative Financing
Single Source Responsibility

7. ADOT Project Scheduling Comparison
Initial Design Concept & EIS
Design
Traditional (Design-Bid-Build)
ROW
Bid
Utility Clearance
Construction
Months 4 8 12 16
Initial Design Concept & EIS
Select Firm
Design-Build (Select-Design-Build)
Design
ROW
Utility Clearance
Construction
Time Savings

8. Constraints and Threats to Design-Build
Lack of Experience and Expertise within Owner organizations to administer and manage this deliver method, while supporting a “fast-track” Project Schedule.
Design-Build project delivery assigns new responsibilities to the contracting parties, and many Owner organizations are not prepared to operate differently than they have under the Design-Bid-Build approach. Since the Design-Builder is the Engineer of Record, he has some latitude to make changes in the design as long as it still meets Project requirements as outlined in the Prime Contract.

9. Constraints and Threats to Design-Build
Many Owners want total control over all those changes, and the right to impose their own standards on all design that the Design-Builder may develop. This defeats the purpose of the Design-Build Approach.
In addition, it’s difficult for many Owner organizations to redirect their staff efforts toward supporting the Design-Build. Design-Build must have close cooperation, a supportive environment and a risk sharing approach between the Owner and the Design-Builder.

10. Design-Build History

11. Studied and Modified Other Plans
2-Day Training — Design-Build Institute of America — ASU
Maricopa County
Florida, Utah, Michigan, New Jersey, Alaska, California and North Carolina
AGC and American Consulting Engineers

12. Design-Build Authorization
Senate Bill 1253
ARS
One ADOT Project Pima County
One ADOT Project Maricopa County
One Project Maricopa County
1996

13. Process Development (Use Existing Documents Whenever Possible)
Design Scoping Document
Revised Standard Specifications General Conditions
Revised Contract Documents
Technical (Section ) Standard Specifications
Project Specific Special Provisions

14. Method/Prescriptive Specs Performance Specs
Design-Build is a Combination of Both
Method/Prescriptive Specs Performance Specs

15. Design-Build Development Team
Deputy State Engineer, Operations
Assistant State Engineer, Construction Group
Assistant State Engineer, Design Group
Assistant State Engineer, Valley Project Management Group
Assistant State Engineer, Statewide Project Management Group
Assistant State Engineer, Support Services Group
Manager, Engineering Consultant Contracts
Manager, Contracts & Specifications Services
Project Manager, Tucson District
Project Manager, Phoenix District
Assistant Attorney General, ADOT Legal
Associated General Contractors
Arizona Consulting engineer Association
Federal Highway Administration

16. Features of 1998 Arizona Design-Build Law
Projects Allowed:
Department of Transportation 3
Department of Administration 2
Counties/Cities > 330,000 1 each
Controls:
Single Project
Minimum Size — 10 Million Dollars
Owner Obtains Right-of-Way
Owner Obtains Environmental Document
Owner Obtains Railroad Approval of Concept Prior to Award

17. HB 2340 2000 Design-Build Law Modifications
Allows two Design-Build Contracts per year. Must be a single specific project with minimum cost of forty (40) million dollars.
All projects must be awarded by June 30, 2007.
Requires annual report to legislature on design-build costs and benefits
Must announce technical proposal score for each proposer.
Specifies at least three But not more than five firms to be on the short list.
Mandates the Department to pay a stipend of two-tenths of one percent to each unsuccessful proposer. Unsuccessful proposer may retain his proposal and waive stipend.

18. Arizona’s Alternative Contracting Legislation
HB 2340
2000 Legislative Session
Internet Address

19. Design-Build Projects

20. I-10/Cortaro Road Interchange Reconstruction
1st Project
I-10/Cortaro Road Interchange Reconstruction
Bid July 1997 $2,760,500
Complete August 1998 $3,714,75*
Completed four months ahead of conventional Design-Bid-Build
Developer contributed $500,000 to cost of project.
*Encountered large areas of unstable subgrade that need to be replaced.

22. Tucson Lessons Learned
Public Involvement Delays (Lost Three Weeks)
Two-way vs. One-way
Frontage Roads
Right-of-Way Delays — Resolved by Working Together
Reluctance of Subcontractors to Use Incomplete Plans without Quantities
Finished Early By 120 Days

23. Cost Analysis Utility and Archeological Investigation $215,948
Wet Subgrade (Changed Condition $554,640
$770,588
Scope and Design Changes
5.7% Over Bid $183,627
Eleven Subcontractors Involved

24. 2nd Project
Phoenix Black Canyon Freeway I-17 — Thomas to Peoria Corridor Improvement
Add an HOV Lane for 7.5 Miles
Add Auxiliary Lanes at Interchanges
Reconstruct and Widen Camelback Road Bridge
Reconstruct and Widen Glendale Avenue Bridge
Design and Install Lighting and Signs
Design and Install Freeway Management System
Approximate Cost — $75 Million
Anticipated Completion — September 2000*
*One year earlier than ADOT schedule

25. I-17 History and Plan Thomas Road Bridge 1992
Indian School Bridge 1996
Dunlap Bridge 1997
Northern Bridge 1998
Bethany Bridge 1998
I-17 Widening at Thomas 1995
I-17 Widening Peoria North 1996
Camelback and Glendale Bridges 2001
Remaining Widening 2004
12 Years — Too Long!!
Let’s Get Done

27. Reasons for Selecting This Project
Solves Serious Congestion Problem
Increases Capacity by 25-30%
Completes Reconstruction of I-17 Three Years Sooner than Current Plan
Construction and Design Cost Savings Due to Combining Projects and Shortening Time
Allows ADOT to Consider Additional HOV Lanes on Other Freeways Sooner

28. Phoenix I-17 Lessons Learned
Teamwork is a Must
Classification of Roles
Preferable to Co-House Team
Only 176 Change Orders
4.8 Percent Overrun (3% Value Added by Owner
Only Two Minor Issue Escalations
State Estimate 900 Days
Completion 603 Days
Successful Use of Incentives
$1.7 Million Dollars Motorist Delay Savings

29. Design-Build Typical Team Composition
Contractor
Design Firms
Prime Subcontractors
1 2 (P)
1 5 (2P)
1 - (1P)
1 -
1 1 (P)
Prime Subcontractors
1 4
1 -
1 3
1 5
On the I-17 Project, 36 percent of work is by subcontractors
70 Subcontractors
11 Engineering Firms

30. I-17 Design-Build Incentive Performance Summary
Potential Amount
Available
Amount Earned
% of Available
Superior Public Relation
Quality Workmanship
Auxiliary Lanes
Early Median Lighting
Camelback T.I. In 180 Days
Glendale T.I. In 180 Days
AR-ACFC Smoothness
PCCP Strength & Thickness
$150,000
$260,000
$400,000
$300,000
$600,000
$1,162,909
$417,989
$150,000
$241,371
$400,000
$300,000
$600,000
$487,599
$271,807
100%
93%
42%
65%

31. Change Order Log 16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added #
Description
Value
Status/Comments 1 1a 2 3 4 5 6 7 7a 7b 8 9 10 11
11a
11b 12 13 14 15 16
Shoulder widenings in depressed roadway (Northern & Dunlap approved) Seg. 3
Shoulder widenings in depressed roadway Seg.1 & 2 (includes slope paving)
Reconstruct NB offramp at Thomas and NB HOV Lane Start I-10/Thomas
Temporary concrete barrier
Frontage Rd work south of Dunlap/27th Ave (NB & SB) & Dunlap TI Work
Increase in gross receipt tax to 7%
Change in traffic control device - barricade with light to large vertical panel
Glendale Bridge damage SB repair #1 -Truesdell girder repair
Glendale Bridge SB repair #2
Glendale Bridge slab repair - south half
Camelback City of Phoenix improvements
VMS relocation (change order complete ‘no cost’)
Full freeway lighting specification change
Kiewit & Sundt previous I-17 project additional work items & misc. items
Northern additional B22.70 fence for wing extensions
Sawcut/remove SPUI ramp wedge
48” fence
NB Indian School catch basin repair
Spall repair under existing asphalt rubber
Maryland pedestrian bridge pier
Ledge beam removal at Bethany, Northern & Dunlap
Approximate Total
$628,075.00
$1,777,361.00
$895,513.00
$45,468.00
$128,331.00
$99,174.00
$68,718.00
$4,956.50
$4,997.18
$304,604.00
$0.00
$165,870.13
$3,606.47
$9,162.78
$86,472.60
$21,802.89
$100,527.64
$4,364,639.99
Finalized C.O. 5
Finalized C.O. 9
Finalized C.O. 12
Finalized C.O. 3
Finalized C.O. 11
Finalized C.O. 7
Finalized C.O. 1
Finalized C.O. 6
Finalized L.A. 3
Finalized L.A. 2
Finalized C.O. 10
Finalized C.O. 2
Finalized C.O. 4
Finalized C.O. 13
Finalized L.A. 1
Finalized C.O. 8
Finalized F.A. 1
F.A. 2
F.A. 3
Finalized C.O. 14
16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added

32. SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway Bullhead City to Golden Valley
3rd Project
SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway Bullhead City to Golden Valley
Convert Two-Lane to Four-Lane Highway
Approximate Cost $45 Million
Construction Start April 2000
Anticipated Completion November 2001
Original Completion July 2004

34. SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway
Design-Build Firm
Technical
Proposal Score
Price Proposal
Price
Tech. Proposal
Best
Value
Kiewit Western/Parsons Trans
Pulice/AGRA
Sundt/Granite/URS Greiner
Total Points
State Estimate
119.7
105.7
114.6
138
$42,118,780
$38,828,846
$53,701,360
$39,391,360
$42,118,780
119.7
$38,828,846
105.7
$53,701,360
114.6
351,869
367,349
468,598
Seven Firms Submitted RFQs

35. US 60/Superstition Freeway
4th Project
US 60/Superstition Freeway
Location: Jct I-10 — Val Vista Road
Length: 13.5 Miles
Features
I-10 — US 60 HOV Freeway to Freeway Interchange
Median HOV Lanes from I-10 — Val Vista Road (EB & WB)
Two Additional General Use Lanes from Loop 101 — Val Vista Road
Auxiliary Lanes Between Interchanges
Total Cost: $255 Million
$200 Million in FY — five-year program
GNS Loans — $100 Million due to month construction time

36. US 60/Superstition Freeway
Design-Bid-Build Process:
Require minimum four separate construction projects
Require 18 month design time, then month construction time per project
Last segment would advertise in FY04 with completion in FY06
Using Design-Build Process Saves a Minimum of 1 1/2 Years

37. Design-Bid Package Proposal Contents
Proposal Process
A-I Public Advertisement
A-II Introduction
Request for Qualifications
Request for Proposal
C-I Final Selection Process
C-II General Requirements
C-III Design Scope of Work
C-IV Technical Specifications
Standard Stored Specs & Special Provisions
(Section100, General Provisions of Specifications have been modified to fit the Design-Build Process)
Contract Documents

38. Request for Qualifications Format US 60 Design-Build Project
Part A Introductory Letter N/A 2
Part B Evaluation Criteria 28
1. Project Understanding
& Approach 25
2. Design-Build Project Team 25
3. Proposers Capabilities 25
4. Quality Program 20
5. Safety Program 5
Part C Supportive Information N/A 10
Part D Design-Builder Proposer’s
Information Form N/A 5
Part E Work History Form N/A 5
Total

39. Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Design-Build Process
1. Responsiveness to RFP 75 Points
Design Management 10 Points
Quality Program 20 Points
Design Features 15 Points
Structure Features 10 Points
Overall Schedule & Milestones 6 Points
Public Relations Plan 5 Points
Geotechnical Investigation 3 Points
Lighting 2 Points
Signing & Pavement Marking 2 Points
Aesthetics & Landscaping 2 Points
2. Innovation 8 Points
Constructability 5 Points
Miscellaneous 3 Points
3. Construction 35 Points
Construction Management 10 Points
Maintenance & Protection of Traffic 10 Points
Utility Relocation Plans 85 Points
Safety Plan 70 Points

40. Project Team Organization

41. Terry Bourland - Development John Akin - Construction
I-17 Design-Build Team
C & S
Richard Murphy
Quality
Allan Samuels
ECS
Ron Thomas
Partnering
Ginger Murdough
Project Managers:
Terry Bourland - Development
John Akin - Construction
FHWA
Bill Vachon
Materials
George Way
Legal
Joe Acosta
AGC
ACEA
City of Phoenix
Right-of-Way
Dave Edwards
Pete Main
Structures
Jim Pyne
Consultant Engineers
DMJM
Kimley-Horn
Utilities
Vern Pagel
Brad Mortensen
FMS
Manny Agah
Traffic Engineering
Richard Moeur
Sponsors:
Ron Williams - Process/Facilitator
Dan Lance - Construction
Steve Jimenez - Development

42. ADOT Design-Build Organization
Responsibilities
Develop Scope
Through
Use of Consultants
ADOT Develop Scope
ADOT Oversight & QA Checking
Design-Build
Develop
Construct

43. Design-Build Short & Long-Term Organization for I-17 Corridor Project
State Engineer
ADOT Development
Project Manager
Terry Bourland
District Construction
Resident Engineer
John Akin
Technical Groups
Design-Build Process
Ron Williams
Technical Groups

44. ADOT Design-Build Team Possible Issue Resolution Structure
Escalation
*Granite Sundt in Yellow
ADOT Design-Build Team Possible Issue Resolution Structure
Granite-Sundt
Management Board*
Or ADOT
Management Team
State Engineer
District Engineer
Dan Lance
Project Director
Daily Operations
ADOT Development Groups
Technical Manager
Project Manager
Terry Bourland
District Construction
Technical Manager
Design Manager
Quality Manager
Construction
Construction
Manager
Development
Technical Leader
Construction
Technical Leader
Design-Build Process Manager
Ron Williams
Eric Crowe
John Akin
Project Manager coordinates all activities within scope, schedule, budget, parameters.

45. Design Team Coordination with Construction and Maintenance Staff
Tuesdays (AM)
Design Team Meeting
D-B Project Manager
Design Manager
Deputy Design Manager
Chief Roadway Engineer
Design Quality Manager
Construction Quality Manager
Task Leaders (as req’d)
ADOT PM & Other Reps
Design Status Progress
Wednesday (PM)
Construction Schedule Meeting
D-B Project Manager
Construction Quality Manager
Construction Manager
Construction Project Engineer
(and staff)
Field Supervisor
Public Relations Manager
Update 5-Week
Construction Schedule
Thursdays (AM)
Design-Build Schedule/Quality Meeting
ADOT Resident Engineer
ADOT Project Manager
ADOT Other Reps (as req’d)
D-B Project Manager
Construction Manager
Construction Quality Manager
Safety Manager
Design Manager
DPS/Law Enforcement
Construction Project Engineer
2 Superintendents
1 Field Engineer
Tuesdays (PM)
Design/Construction Meeting
Design Manager
Deputy Design Manager
Task Leaders (as req’d
Construction Project Engineer
Updated Design Schedule
Thursdays (PM)
ADOT Public Relations Meeting
ADOT District PR Rep
D-B Project Manager
Public Relations Manager
Design Manager
Construction Project Manager
MOT Engineer
Regional Traffic Engineer
Updated Public Information
for Release on Friday

46. I-17 Design-Build Plan Review and Release Process
Constructibility Input
Plan Developed by Lead Discipline
Plan Developed by Lead Discipline
Plan Routed to All Other Technical Disciplines and Construction Staff
50% Comment Resolution Meeting
ADOT Attendance & Comment
Plan Revised by Lead Discipline
80% Comment Resolution Meeting
ADOT Attendance & Comment
Constructibility Input
Plan Revised by Lead Discipline
Audit of QC Documentation
Design Team Manager Approves for Construction
Construction Project Engineer Releases Plan for Construction

47. Utility Relationships

48. Utilities in the Design-Build Process
1. ADOT Locates Utilities and Probable Conflicts. Through June 1998
2. ADOT Obtains New R/W on Glendale Avenue and Camelback Road (10’ to12’). No R/W Needed for I-17. Through December 1998
3. ADOT Determines Prior Rights Where Possible. Through December 1998
4. Design-Build Firm Starts Design From Concept Report. Through January 1999
5. Design-Build Firm Determines Utility Conflicts as First Work Item. Through March 1999

49. Relocation Process
Design-Build Firm Has Responsibility to Adjust and Relocate Utilities as Needed
ADOT Will Pay to Move Utilities with Prior Rights
Utilities Will Pay for Betterment
Permitted Utilities Will Coordinate Their Move with Design-Build Firm

50. Working Relationships
Design by Design-Build Firm
Design by Utility Companies
Relocation by Design-Build Firm
Relocation by Utility or Its Agent Prior to Road Construction
Relocation by Utility or Its Agent During Construction

51. Selection of Best Value Offer for Design-Build Projects

52. Selection Process — Two Step
Request for Qualifications — Team
Request for Proposal — Technical

53. Best Value Proposal
Cost
Technical Score

54. SR 68 Evaluation Panels Short List Panel
Panel Member
Section
Qualifications
1. George Wallace, PE
Pre-Design
21+ years with ADOT, PE for 23 years
Pre-Design Section Manager
2. Debra Brisk, PE
Kingman District
16 years with ADOT, PE for 12, years
Kingman District Engineer
3. Julie Trunk
FHWA
11 years with FHWA, non-PE position,
materials background
4. Dee Bowling
Environmental
Planning
10 years with ADOT, non-PE position,
environmental background
5. Mike Bluff
AGC
22 years as a contractor, non-PE position,
24 years in construction

55. SR 68 Evaluation Panels Technical Proposal Panel
Panel Member
Section
Qualifications
1. Bahram Dariush, PE
S/W Project
Management
15 years with ADOT, PE for 4 years,
SR 68 D-B Design Project Manager
2. Jennifer Livingston,
PE, BSCE, MSE
Kingman District
4 years with ADOT, PE for 1 year,
SR 68 D-B Resident Engineer
3. John Lawson, PE
Materials Section
29 years with ADOT, PE for 25+ years,
materials/geotechnical background
4. Shafi Hasan, PE
Bridge Group
9 years with ADOT, PE for 16+ years,
structures background
5. Tay Dam
FHWA
5 years with ADOT, non-PE position,
environmental background
6. Arif Kazmi, PE
Traffic Group
16 years with ADOT, PE for 14 years,
traffic background
7. Art Brooks, PE
ACEA
18 years as an owner of a design firm,
PE for 26 years

56. SR 68 Design-Build Project
Overall Ranking by Score Selection
Panel #1
Panel #2
Panel #3
Panel #4
Panel #5
Panel #6
Panel #7
Firm
Avg
Rank
1. Kiewit Western
3. Sundt/Granite
2. Pulice
Overall Ranking by Rank Order Selection
Panel #1
Panel #2
Panel #3
Panel #4
Panel #5
Panel #6
Panel #7
Firm
Avg
Rank
1. Kiewit Western
3. Sundt/Granite
2. Pulice

57. SR 68 Design-Build Project
Firm: Pulice Rank: 3
Representative:
Panel Composition:
1 Spmg - Phx
2 Kingman District
3 Bridge Group
4 Materials Group
5 ACEA
6 FHWA
7 Traffic
Selection Debriefing
Difference
Max
Pts
Panel #1
Panel #2
Panel #3
Panel #4
Panel #5
Panel #6
Panel #7 #1
Frim
Evaluation Criteria
Avg
1. Responsiveness to RFP
2. Innovation
3. Construction
4. Oral Interviews
Maximum Possible Points (RFP)
Rank Orders

58. SR 68 Design-Build Project
Firm: Kiewit Western Rank: 1
Representative:
Panel Composition:
1 Spmg - Phx
2 Kingman District
3 Bridge Group
4 Materials Group
5 ACEA
6 FHWA
7 Traffic
Selection Debriefing
Max
Pts
Panel #1
Panel #2
Panel #3
Panel #4
Panel #5
Panel #6
Panel #7
Evaluation Criteria
Avg
1. Responsiveness to RFP
2. Innovation
3. Construction
4. Oral Interviews
Maximum Possible Points (RFP)
Rank Orders

59. Request for Qualifications Format US 60 Design-Build Project
Bid Opening: 06/09/00
Bidder
Technical
Proposal
Score (TPS)
Price
Proposal
Adjusted Score
(AS)=
(PP)(TPS)
State Estimate
Kiewit Western Co.
Pulice Construction, Inc.
Sundt/Granite, J.V
N/A
119.70
105.70
114.60
$39,391,360
$42,118,780
$38,828,846
$53,701,360
N/A
351,869
367,349
468,598

60. Value Items in Kiewit Proposal
Five Segments Permit Early Opening
Relocate Bridge to Construct a Square, Not a Skewed Bridge
Independent Roadways; Super Elevation Improves Drainage
Grade Modification at Union Pass Crest Allows 60 MPH Roadway Instead of 45 MPH
Improved Vertical Site Distance
Improved Horizontal Sight Distance

61. Review Comments — SR 68 Kiewit Proposal
In-depth understanding
Most innovative proposal
Stressed BLM relationships
Discussed every item
Quite innovative in design and construction matters
Complete 4 months early. Stop work on Friday at noon
Solid construction management approach
Clearly understood the impact to traveling public is a major issue

62. Review Comments — SR 68 Pulice/AGRA Proposal
A lot of unanswered questions
Would complete 6 months early
All 13 miles under construction at the same time — 2 segments
Constructability very brief
Organizational plan not clear
Lacking technical response in panel interview. Answers unclear

63. Bid Tabulations I-17 Design-Build Project
Bid Opening: 11/13/98
Bidder
Technical
Score
Proposed
Days
“A” = Price
Proposal
“B” = Time
Value
“A+B”=
Adjusted Price
“A+B”/TPS=
Adjusted Score
Engineer
J.D. Abrams, Inc.
Granite/Sundt
Meadow Valley/
Parsons Brinkerhoff
N/A
85.30
88.10
85.90
910
700
609
800
$64,749,450
$89,917,800
$79,729,000
$93,017,800
$14,560,000
$11,200,000
$9,744,000
$12,800,000
$79,309,450
$101,117,800
$89,473,000
$105,817,800
N/A
$1,185,437
$1,015,584
$1,231,871

64. Value Items in Granite/Sundt I-17 Proposal
Extra Widening for Typical Section
Improved NB Transition to H.O.V.
Clearly Defined Organization
Outside — In Approach Permitted Completion One Year Early

65. Cortaro Road Design-Build
I-17 Design-Build
SR 68 Design-Build
Ave
Score
Ave
Score
Ave
Score
Firm
Firm
Firm
1 89
2 87
3 87
4 83
5 81
6 80
7 71
1 88
2 88
3 87
4 84
5 75
1 91
2 90
3 89
4 87
5 83
6 81
7 74
Average
87.6
Average
87.6
Average 90
Short List Process
84.1
to get in
84.1
to get in
86.4
to get in
Ave
Score
Ave
Score
Firm
Firm
1 88.6
2 81.8
3 74.4
1 88.1
2 85.9
3 85.3
Final Selection