Critics wary of Va.'s new time-saving road construction

[cpzilliacus]

D.C. Examiner: Critics wary of Va.'s new time-saving road construction

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell is singing the praises of a new method for getting highways built, but some groups are wary of a process they say minimizes public input and allows contractors to cut corners.

McDonnell's administration is planning 10 projects for the next two years using the "design-build" method, which gives highway-design contracts to the same firms that build the roads -- a change from years past, in which state agencies or consultants would design roads themselves before allowing construction firms to bid.

Unfortunate that this article makes no mention of Maryland's InterCounty Connector (Md. 200) toll road, being built not so far north of the Potomac River.  The entire road has been (and is being) built using design-build.

[Beltway]

D.C. Examiner: Critics wary of Va.'s new time-saving road construction

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell is singing the praises of a new method for getting highways built, but some groups are wary of a process they say minimizes public input and allows contractors to cut corners.

McDonnell's administration is planning 10 projects for the next two years using the "design-build" method, which gives highway-design contracts to the same firms that build the roads -- a change from years past, in which state agencies or consultants would design roads themselves before allowing construction firms to bid.

Unfortunate that this article makes no mention of Maryland's InterCounty Connector (Md. 200) toll road, being built not so far north of the Potomac River.  The entire road has been (and is being) built using design-build.

Ditto for the Route 895 Pocahontas Parkway, and the I-495 HOT Lanes Project.

Construction firms don't do design, they would have to sub-contract that to an engineering firm.

They can't build the project without first having a completed NEPA environmental study process, which includes public hearings and input.

It's up to the state DOT to have an adequate construction inspection process in place, to ensure that all specifications and standards are followed.

[froggie]

As I recall, DDOT's 11th Street Bridge project is also design-build, and DDOT approval is required for design changes.

Minnesota's design-build law has come under some controversy, most notably with the I-35W bridge replacement, because the winning bid is not necessarily the lowest bid.  MN state law allows MnDOT to place a high value on a bid's "technical score", as long as the process of determining said score is well-documented.  For the I-35W bridge, the winning bid was the highest dollar amount, but had a technical score that completely blew away the other bids.

[Revive 755]

I'm curious how design-build works versus the standard bidding process when it comes to pay items.  Is there more flexibility, or is the contractor still limited to a certain list of items?  I'm also wondering how the change orders/extra work is handled, if design-build even has any.

For example, in a normal contract, the pay items may limit the contractor to a certain type of drainage structure, say six foot diameter with a nine inch lid.  If for some reason the standard structure doesn't work (utility conflict, design error, maybe a combo of both), the state must go through the extra work/change order process to use a different type of structure.  In design build, would the contractor be the one initially choosing the type of structure instead of the DOT?

[AsphaltPlanet]

In Ontario a new contract method is being tried where  a contractor must design and build, but also operate and maintain the highway for a set period of time.  For the Windsor-Essex Parkway, I believe that the contractor is on the hook to look after the highway for a period of 30 years.  This offers incentive to a construction group to build a highway that will stand up, since they will have to pay for the ongoing maintenance for a pretty impressive amount of time.

[J N Winkler]

I'm curious how design-build works versus the standard bidding process when it comes to pay items.  Is there more flexibility, or is the contractor still limited to a certain list of items?  I'm also wondering how the change orders/extra work is handled, if design-build even has any.

In this respect there is probably some variation between design-build contracts.  I would expect, however, that design-builders are expected to use the state DOT's engineering standards (including the standard plans, standard specifications, and standard bid item listing) as a starting point.  Design-builders also cannot just design a part of the facility and build it without review.  In every design-build contract I have ever heard of, there has been a review stage intermediate between design and construction where the design-builder has to supply construction plans to the state DOT (or a general engineering consultant appointed by the state DOT to manage the design-build contract) for review.  Once these plans are approved by the state DOT or GEC, they become "released for construction" (RFC) plans and are used for the construction stage.  RFC plans are what you will get if you try to get the plans for a design-build contract through an open records request and the final as-builts are not available.

If the design-builder is given the discretion to choose the pay items included on a project, the decision will have to be justified to the state DOT or GEC at some point.  This may not necessarily be at the plans review stage.  Design-build contracts often call for other written deliverables, such as a drainage report, and the need for particular bid items will often be evident when these are compiled.

For example, in a normal contract, the pay items may limit the contractor to a certain type of drainage structure, say six foot diameter with a nine inch lid.  If for some reason the standard structure doesn't work (utility conflict, design error, maybe a combo of both), the state must go through the extra work/change order process to use a different type of structure.  In design build, would the contractor be the one initially choosing the type of structure instead of the DOT?

Generally, yes.  (This may not be true for all design-build contracts, particularly ones where the state DOT already has done a substantial amount of the final design work.)  In any case, if the structure is left to the design-builder's discretion, the design-builder's choice must be ratified by the state DOT in a later review.  This is not just for compliance with engineering practice legislation; it is also in the state DOT's interest to have a finished project that is maintainable.  Moreover, if the design-build contract uses federal funding, the design-builder must not specify proprietary products unless it can be shown satisfactorily that there is no non-proprietary alternative that meets the design aim.

I have no firsthand information as to how variations are handled within design-build contracts.  I would imagine, however, that it depends largely on how the contract is structured, because they cannot be separated from the problem of incentivizing the contractor to design and build the project economically (i.e., nothing in excess of contract requirements provided and charged for unless it can be justified) within a reasonable period of time (e.g., by a contractual completion date which cannot be moved except in response to circumstances outside the design-builder's control).

D.C. Examiner: Critics wary of Va.'s new time-saving road construction

This article has the smell of "cub reporter" all over it.  As others have noted, it conflates the environmental review process (where "alternatives analysis" comes into play) with final design and construction.  (As a general rule, American design-build contracts begin no earlier in the project development process than the start of final design.  Conceptually they can begin earlier, but few state DOTs have tried to structure design-build contracts to cover the environmental review phase, which entails taking into account the possibility that the project will be cancelled altogether.  In Britain, where scheme development contracts can begin well before line and slip road orders are published, contractors are typically paid a stipend for the design work involved in bringing a scheme to public inquiry stage.  This stipend is most if not all of their compensation if the scheme is rejected after the inquiry and orders are consequently not published.)  The criticisms of corner-cutting and contractor profiteering are old hat, as is VDOT's "We provide oversight" response.

The article nowhere touches on the real problems with design-build, as I see them:

*  Plans showing a finished design are not provided as part of the bidding process.  Plans for the finished project must therefore be obtained from the state DOT in arrears, which is usually a good deal more difficult and costly than getting bidding plans.  Design-build contracts are therefore usually more opaque than design-bid-build contracts.  The main exceptions to this observation are cases where document exchange between the design-builder and the overseeing body (either state DOT or GEC) occurs in a publicly accessible space, or design-build as-builts are systematically made available as part of the state DOT's online as-builts archive (if it has one).

*  The fast-tracking that leads to the choice of design-build as a delivery method often does not leave adequate time for detailed surveys, which can help the contractor avoid expensive do-overs.  This was a noted problem with early Ohio DOT design-build contracts, where uncertainties about subsoil conditions led to design-build jobs costing more for the same work compared to design-bid-build contracts for which more detailed information was available at the bidding stage.

*  Design-build plans tend to be chaotic.  With a standard design-bid-build contract, you normally have only one set of construction plans, with one title sheet, and functional disciplines segregated into their own sections according to the state DOT's plan assembly rules.  The sheets typically show the proposed finished state of the project.  In contradistinction, with a design-build contract you might have literally hundreds of plans sets, each with its own title sheet, covering the project in whole or in part, containing multiple functional disciplines or just one, and reflecting stages of the design process other than the finished, final design.  When the plans are broken up in this way, it is very difficult to tell whether you have a complete set of plans for the project.

This last point is probably the main reason I dread design-builds.  Arizona DOT does very good design-build contracts, with drawings developed to the as-builts stage very soon after construction finishes (not eons afterward, as in many other states) and integrated into a single plans set for the entire project.  But this is the exception rather than the rule.  For some projects all you can find are the RFC plans sets, of which there tend to be literally hundreds (most very small) when the project is of any size.  Even when finished as-built plans are available, they can be highly fragmented if they adhere to the project's division into work units for construction purposes.  For example, the as-built plans for the TH 212 freeway design-build in Minnesota are in 70 pieces.

Years ago, when the Beltway widening project was getting underway, I had informal access to the design-builder's submittals to its GEC.  There were literally hundreds of them within the space of a few months, many of them highly duplicative.  Integrating them into a complete set of plans for the entire project wasn't really a practical proposition, but I would have liked to have continued collecting them so that I could watch the project evolve.  Unfortunately, security changes were made and I lost my access.

If this kind of material changed hands on, say, a public FTP server, I would still be able to review it, but I don't see that ever happening with VDOT--the culture is to lock everything down, wait for you to come and ask for it, and then figure out how much to charge you.

[ARMOURERERIC]

This is probably a lame attempt by some NIMBY/Enviro group to get things slowed down so there is more time to file annoying lawsuits

[cpzilliacus]

This is probably a lame attempt by some NIMBY/Enviro group to get things slowed down so there is more time to file annoying lawsuits

One of the groups quoted by the D.C. Examiner article is a prominent member of the Washington, D.C.-area "anti-auto vanguard," as Professor James Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers put it in a book some years ago. 

Having said that, by the time that a highway project gets to design-build, there's (usually) not terribly much that said groups can do to stop a project.

This group (and all of its fellow anti-highway/anti-mobility groups) were (and remain) bitterly opposed to Maryland's ICC, but by the time that the design-build contracts were awarded, the lawsuit that they filed in U.S. District Court for Maryland (citing an inadequate environmental impact statement and claiming the ICC would make air quality worse) had been entirely rejected and they were reduced to filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va. (a court notoriously unsympathetic to appeals filed by anti-highway groups) which was eventually dropped, demanding that Maryland DOT take an ICC "time-out" (presumably for further unspecified studies) and getting sympathetic legislators in the Maryland General Assembly to file bills to forbid construction of the highway (which went nowhere).

[cpzilliacus]

Generally, yes.  (This may not be true for all design-build contracts, particularly ones where the state DOT already has done a substantial amount of the final design work.)  In any case, if the structure is left to the design-builder's discretion, the design-builder's choice must be ratified by the state DOT in a later review.  This is not just for compliance with engineering practice legislation; it is also in the state DOT's interest to have a finished project that is maintainable.  Moreover, if the design-build contract uses federal funding, the design-builder must not specify proprietary products unless it can be shown satisfactorily that there is no non-proprietary alternative that meets the design aim.

In the case of Maryland's ICC (Route 200), I was told that design had gotten to about 30% of what was needed when the Final Environmental Impact Statement and then the Record of Decision were signed.

The remaining 70% was done as part of the design-build process.

[Beltway]

This is probably a lame attempt by some NIMBY/Enviro group to get things slowed down so there is more time to file annoying lawsuits

One of the groups quoted by the D.C. Examiner article is a prominent member of the Washington, D.C.-area "anti-auto vanguard," as Professor James Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers put it in a book some years ago. 

Having said that, by the time that a highway project gets to design-build, there's (usually) not terribly much that said groups can do to stop a project.

This group (and all of its fellow anti-highway/anti-mobility groups) were (and remain) bitterly opposed to Maryland's ICC, but by the time that the design-build contracts were awarded, the lawsuit that they filed in U.S. District Court for Maryland (citing an inadequate environmental impact statement and claiming the ICC would make air quality worse) had been entirely rejected and they were reduced to filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va. (a court notoriously unsympathetic to appeals filed by anti-highway groups) which was eventually dropped, demanding that Maryland DOT take an ICC "time-out" (presumably for further unspecified studies) and getting sympathetic legislators in the Maryland General Assembly to file bills to forbid construction of the highway (which went nowhere).

When are those anti-highway groups going to file a lawsuit demanding that the ICC undergo demolition of pavement, demolition of bridges, and restoration of original ground?

<smile!>

[cpzilliacus]

This is probably a lame attempt by some NIMBY/Enviro group to get things slowed down so there is more time to file annoying lawsuits

One of the groups quoted by the D.C. Examiner article is a prominent member of the Washington, D.C.-area "anti-auto vanguard," as Professor James Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers put it in a book some years ago. 

Having said that, by the time that a highway project gets to design-build, there's (usually) not terribly much that said groups can do to stop a project.

This group (and all of its fellow anti-highway/anti-mobility groups) were (and remain) bitterly opposed to Maryland's ICC, but by the time that the design-build contracts were awarded, the lawsuit that they filed in U.S. District Court for Maryland (citing an inadequate environmental impact statement and claiming the ICC would make air quality worse) had been entirely rejected and they were reduced to filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va. (a court notoriously unsympathetic to appeals filed by anti-highway groups) which was eventually dropped, demanding that Maryland DOT take an ICC "time-out" (presumably for further unspecified studies) and getting sympathetic legislators in the Maryland General Assembly to file bills to forbid construction of the highway (which went nowhere).

When are those anti-highway groups going to file a lawsuit demanding that the ICC undergo demolition of pavement, demolition of bridges, and restoration of original ground?

<smile!>

When they can pay of the billions of dollars in toll revenue bonds that the MdTA sold to finance the construction of the ICC. 

If I recall correctly, between 50% and 55% of the construction cost (about $2.5 billion) was funded by MdTA bonds.

[froggie]

...which, despite some claims to the contrary, is a major contributing reason why MdTA raised tolls this month.

[cpzilliacus]

...which, despite some claims to the contrary, is a major contributing reason why MdTA raised tolls this month.

The traffic and revenue forecasts for the ICC were, as I understand it, extremely conservative - and don't forget the I-95 Express Toll Lanes between the I-95/I-895 junction on the northeast side of Baltimore and White Marsh.  But if someone is going to complain about low traffic volumes, then the F.S. Key Bridge (Md. 695) only carries slightly over 30,000 ADT, and the Hatem Bridge (U.S. 40) less than 28,000 ADT should be the target of such ire.

Unlike some of MdTA's other assets, the ICC and the I-95 ETLs are not going to need heavy (and expensive) maintenance for quite a few years.  Compare and contrast with:

(1) the I-95 (Millard Tydings Bridge) and U.S. 40 (Hatem Bridge) crossings over the Susquehanna River, which need significant repair work on the piers and footings (I think the contract for the Tydings has been awarded, not sure about the Hatem);

(2) The U.S. 301 bridge (Harry Nice) over the Potomac River near Dalhgren, Va., which needs a at least a new span to twin what's there now (or a completely new four lane bridge); and

(3) The "original" 1952 span of the two U.S. 50/U.S. 301 Chesapeake Bay (William Preston Lane, Jr.) Bridge, now (usually)  operated eastbound (two lanes) needs to have its deck replaced in the coming years.

And as we have discussed before, MdTA gives away a lot of free passage on its (supposedly) tolled system, especially on I-95 between White Marsh and Elkton, where the General Assembly directed the authority to detoll the ramps in the early 1980's (from the time that the Northeast Expressway (later re-named the JFK Highway after his assassination) opened to about 1982, traffic using the JFK and not passing through the main toll barrier at Perryville had to pay toll at the ramps, which were never staffed - they were coin-drop exact change only).  At a minimum, I think MdTA should consider a return to two-way tolling at the locations where it only collects toll one-way today.  Little impact on E-ZPass® patrons, and should result in higher revenue collection.

[Alps]

...which, despite some claims to the contrary, is a major contributing reason why MdTA raised tolls this month.

The traffic and revenue forecasts for the ICC were, as I understand it, extremely conservative - and don't forget the I-95 Express Toll Lanes between the I-95/I-895 junction on the northeast side of Baltimore and White Marsh.  But if someone is going to complain about low traffic volumes, then the F.S. Key Bridge (Md. 695) only carries slightly over 30,000 ADT, and the Hatem Bridge (U.S. 40) less than 28,000 ADT should be the target of such ire.

That's just silly. US 40/Hatem is a critical local link - what, are you going to have everyone jump up to I-95 and back down just to go to the next town? I-695 is another critical link to the industrial areas of SE Baltimore and is a much shorter and faster way for tall vehicles/hazmats to get through Baltimore than around the long side of the Beltway. Your arguments are red herrings at best.

Unlike some of MdTA's other assets, the ICC and the I-95 ETLs are not going to need heavy (and expensive) maintenance for quite a few years.

My main point is that you could have saved quite a bit of money by not paving the extra lane in either direction - millions of dollars that can go to another project. With the cost of concrete, I'm not exaggerating.

At a minimum, I think MdTA should consider a return to two-way tolling at the locations where it only collects toll one-way today.  Little impact on E-ZPass patrons, and should result in higher revenue collection.

I don't see why it would. The river crossings are largely a captive audience - how many people are really using the Conowingo or going up via US 222/I-81 the long way? Baltimore is similarly captive - I use US 40 to I-395/MD 295 but very few other people are doing the same.

[Beltway]

My main point is that you could have saved quite a bit of money by not paving the extra lane in either direction - millions of dollars that can go to another project. With the cost of concrete, I'm not exaggerating.

Not nearly as much as you might think.  Maybe 10%, based on alternatives analyses of seen of similar projects.  It would cost a lot more to come back and widen it later.  Best to build for the future.

[cpzilliacus]

...which, despite some claims to the contrary, is a major contributing reason why MdTA raised tolls this month.

The traffic and revenue forecasts for the ICC were, as I understand it, extremely conservative - and don't forget the I-95 Express Toll Lanes between the I-95/I-895 junction on the northeast side of Baltimore and White Marsh.  But if someone is going to complain about low traffic volumes, then the F.S. Key Bridge (Md. 695) only carries slightly over 30,000 ADT, and the Hatem Bridge (U.S. 40) less than 28,000 ADT should be the target of such ire.

That's just silly. US 40/Hatem is a critical local link - what, are you going to have everyone jump up to I-95 and back down just to go to the next town? I-695 is another critical link to the industrial areas of SE Baltimore and is a much shorter and faster way for tall vehicles/hazmats to get through Baltimore than around the long side of the Beltway. Your arguments are red herrings at best.

No dispute about any of the above.  Just pointing out that some of MdTA's other toll crossings have (relatively) light volumes of traffic, that's all. Clearly the FSK (for the excellent reasons you mention) and the Hatem are vital crossings (and the Hatem needs to be tolled to prevent trucks from diverting off of the JFK Highway).

Unlike some of MdTA's other assets, the ICC and the I-95 ETLs are not going to need heavy (and expensive) maintenance for quite a few years.

My main point is that you could have saved quite a bit of money by not paving the extra lane in either direction - millions of dollars that can go to another project. With the cost of concrete, I'm not exaggerating.

On the I-95 ETLs or the ICC?  Or both?

At a minimum, I think MdTA should consider a return to two-way tolling at the locations where it only collects toll one-way today.  Little impact on E-ZPass patrons, and should result in higher revenue collection.

I don't see why it would. The river crossings are largely a captive audience - how many people are really using the Conowingo or going up via US 222/I-81 the long way? Baltimore is similarly captive - I use US 40 to I-395/MD 295 but very few other people are doing the same.

It's more about truck traffic.  Maryland has a truck weigh-inspection station on U.S. 1 just south of the Conowingo Dam to deter truck traffic from avoiding the tolls on I-95 northbound.  In theory, tractor-trailers pulling 53 foot trailers (and "double" combinations) are also banned from U.S. 1 (between Bel Air and the Maryland/Pennsylvania border) unless they are doing a local delivery.

[codyg1985]

Generally, yes.  (This may not be true for all design-build contracts, particularly ones where the state DOT already has done a substantial amount of the final design work.)  In any case, if the structure is left to the design-builder's discretion, the design-builder's choice must be ratified by the state DOT in a later review.  This is not just for compliance with engineering practice legislation; it is also in the state DOT's interest to have a finished project that is maintainable.  Moreover, if the design-build contract uses federal funding, the design-builder must not specify proprietary products unless it can be shown satisfactorily that there is no non-proprietary alternative that meets the design aim.

In the case of Maryland's ICC (Route 200), I was told that design had gotten to about 30% of what was needed when the Final Environmental Impact Statement and then the Record of Decision were signed.

The remaining 70% was done as part of the design-build process.

That sounds accurate. The design may be done in-house or by another firm that they have under some sort of indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract to do the preliminary design. The performance of that design gets evaluated, and then it gets wrapped up into an RFP (see below).

I am not very familiar with design-build from a highway standpoint, but from a facilities standpoint the owner (in this case the DOT) would develop a request for proposal (RFP) that outlines specific performance requirements for the project. An RFP doesn't constitute a design or design details. It doesn't tell the contractor how to do something. So maybe a design-build RFP may have a requirement to provide a freeway that can handle 200,000 vpd in 2030, but it doesn't dictate the design details of the freeway (e.g. number of lanes, exit ramps, auxillary lanes, etc.).

It is important that the RFP is developed so that it weeds out contractors that aren't experienced with design-build or that are not good fits for the project. Often you don't want to select purely on the basis of cost. I know in the case of selecting an architect/engineer (A/E) firm for designing facilities, we are not allowed to award on the basis of cost. Other factors, mainly technical ability and capacity, come into play.

[cpzilliacus]

That sounds accurate. The design may be done in-house or by another firm that they have under some sort of indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract to do the preliminary design. The performance of that design gets evaluated, and then it gets wrapped up into an RFP (see below).

I am not very familiar with design-build from a highway standpoint, but from a facilities standpoint the owner (in this case the DOT) would develop a request for proposal (RFP) that outlines specific performance requirements for the project. An RFP doesn't constitute a design or design details. It doesn't tell the contractor how to do something. So maybe a design-build RFP may have a requirement to provide a freeway that can handle 200,000 vpd in 2030, but it doesn't dictate the design details of the freeway (e.g. number of lanes, exit ramps, auxillary lanes, etc.).

It is important that the RFP is developed so that it weeds out contractors that aren't experienced with design-build or that are not good fits for the project. Often you don't want to select purely on the basis of cost. I know in the case of selecting an architect/engineer (A/E) firm for designing facilities, we are not allowed to award on the basis of cost. Other factors, mainly technical ability and capacity, come into play.

At least one of the large ICC design-build contracts (Contract B, for the "middle" segment of the highway) was awarded by Maryland's State Highway Administration to a design-build team that was not the low bidder.

The apparent low bid group challenged the award administratively, but in the end, SHA ended up awarding it to the group that they had intended to give the work to.

[J N Winkler]

I am not very familiar with design-build from a highway standpoint, but from a facilities standpoint the owner (in this case the DOT) would develop a request for proposal (RFP) that outlines specific performance requirements for the project. An RFP doesn't constitute a design or design details. It doesn't tell the contractor how to do something. So maybe a design-build RFP may have a requirement to provide a freeway that can handle 200,000 vpd in 2030, but it doesn't dictate the design details of the freeway (e.g. number of lanes, exit ramps, auxillary lanes, etc.).

Yup.  In the US it is fairly uncommon for design-build contracts to be open-ended enough to allow the contractor to specify broad details of lane count and alignment, but that approach is used extensively for what are called Early Contractor Involvement contracts in Britain.

More usually, in the US a state DOT has an indicative design for what it wants built, which is specific down to the trace of the route (including profile lines for mainline carriageways and ramps), lane count, and even finish details like major guide signs.  It then becomes the contractor's responsibility to finish the design to the state DOT's standards and then build it.

It is important that the RFP is developed so that it weeds out contractors that aren't experienced with design-build or that are not good fits for the project. Often you don't want to select purely on the basis of cost. I know in the case of selecting an architect/engineer (A/E) firm for designing facilities, we are not allowed to award on the basis of cost. Other factors, mainly technical ability and capacity, come into play.

It is not uncommon for RFPs for design-build contracts to require bidders to specify which senior personnel they will assign to the project and to supply their CVs as part of the proposal.  Evaluation of organizational capability is very much part of the design-build process for highways.