Difference between revisions of "Category:139 Design - Build"

I-64 Daniel Boone Design-Build Procurement Information

Information about replacing I-70 bridges over the Manchester Trafficway

Design - build is a contractor procurement and project delivery method that combines both the design and construction phase into one contract, thus allowing these phases to proceed concurrently, while saving both time and resources. Design - build is a particularly effective tool for typically complex projects that call for innovation and speed of completion. It has been used in building construction for a number of years, however it is a relatively new approach being used in the transportation industry.

Design - build contracts are typically for larger amounts of money and companies must have the ability to bond that amount. In the case of I-64, we asked the Design - build teams to have bonding capacity of more than $400 million. The I-64 teams included national design-build companies and prime contractor and design firms from St. Louis. All of these companies make up the prime contracting team.

139.1 Procurement Process

139.1.1 Project Goals

Setting goals for the project is a very important step of the design-build delivery process. Establishing well defined project goals as the first step for any project delivery analysis will provide the necessary success standards to measure against at each phase of project delivery. Ultimately, the measure of any project’s success is how well the project met or exceeded the established project goals.

The well-defined project definition/environmental documentation process primarily focuses on a project’s end result – what the project will look like when completed. In contrast, project delivery goal setting focuses on how the project will be delivered – the conditions that define “during-construction” excellence. The challenge is to develop multifaceted, measurable project goals that capture all key stakeholders’ definition of project delivery success.

139.1.1.1 Purpose and Objective of Project Goal-Setting

MoDOT’s goals for a particular project will be the basis from which the project delivery/procurement method will be determined and the project specific procurement requirements will be developed. Refined project-specific goals allow decision-makers to evaluate the advantages and challenges of various procurement methods and select a project delivery method that provides the best opportunity to meet or exceed the established project goals. Some advantages and challenges to consider during the project delivery analysis are:

In order to effectively use project goals to guide project delivery selection, the goals must be defined in order of importance to MoDOT. "Priority order" allows project delivery decisions-makers to use the #1 goal as the “pivot point” to analyze all delivery choices. The remaining goals, established in descending order of importance, further define and shape the project’s procurement/delivery strategies.

Also, prioritized goals provide a basis for project “trade-off” decisions during the development of design-build procurement documents. Whether the project team is determining short-list criteria, design-build contractor selection criteria, technical provision requirements or risk allocation, the prioritized project goals guide how one approach is selected over other viable options.

139.1.1.2 Content of Project Goal-Setting

Project goals are standards that meassure the success of a project. Most projects’ goals are complex, requiring objectives to be further used to better define how goals are to be measured. Objectives are the methods by which the project goals are achieved.

Questions that should be considered when determining the goals for a project include:

A. Is this goal detailed enough to guide preparation of the Procurement Documents?

B. Is this a goal which, if met or exceeded, the public would perceive the project as successful?

C. Is this goal “end-minded”?

D. Is this goal realistic?

E. Is this goal measurable?

F. Is this goal clear?

G. Who is this goal intended to benefit?

H. Is this goal based upon an objective assessment of the needs of the community, MoDOT, etc.?

I. Are the goals established in order of importance?

Questions that should be considered when determining the objectives pertaining to a goal include:

A. Does this objective contribute toward achieving the goal?

B. Will meeting this objective further the interest of meeting the goal?

C. Is this an objective for the entire project or for a specific area of the project? If it is for a specific area of the project, what are the objectives for the remaining areas that will achieve the goal?

D. Is this objective time-bound?

E. Is it an interim or during construction objective?

F. Is this objective achievable?

G. Is this objective measurable?

H. Does the objective provide additional definition in support of the goal?

Once these questions have been addressed and the goals have been developed, they should be clearly communicated to all project participants including all MoDOT project personnel, the design and construction industry and all project stakeholders.

139.1.1.3 Examples

The project goals listed below were developed for design-build projects. The goals, and for some projects, objectives, are included as a reference for MoDOT goal setting efforts. Goals/objectives have been highlighted as being well developed (■) or needs improvement (▪).

Project A

1. Maximize capacity and mobility improvements in the corridor within the program budget of $150 million.

2. Minimize inconvenience to the public during construction.

The I-64 reconstruction project in St. Louis was selected as the 2010 America's Transportation Awards Grand Prize Winner by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AAA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

3. Provide a quality product.

4. Complete construction by end of calendar year 2008.

5. Provide a visually pleasing finished product.

Project B

1. Minimize inconvenience to adjacent properties and the traveling public.

2. Complete the Project by November 2009 within the budget established by the city. (Should include $ amount).

3. Construct to the highest quality and at the vest value, a safe, functional and aesthetically pleasing parkway that will enhance adjacent properties and be relatively easy to maintain.

4. Encourage participation of local engineers, contractors and material suppliers.

5. Keep the public well informed throughout the duration of the project.

Project C

1. Budget

• Completion of the project within the budget established ***including the estimated cost set forth in Section 1.7.?*** (Should include $ amount).
• Implement innovative solutions to maximize taxpayer investments by reducing cost or improving the transportation system. (Should include additional objectives to better define “improving transportation system”).

2. Stakeholder Satisfaction

• Coordinate and mitigate community and stakeholder issues (construction noise, public relations, staging, budget, haul roads, etc.) (Should provide additional detail for the objectives identified).

3. Optimize Design and Construction Quality

• Safety to the traveling public and project personnel.
• System operation.
• Plan implementation
• Minimize future maintenance.

4. Schedules

• Begin construction by Spring 2005.
• Final Acceptance no later than November 3, 2007.

Examples of MoDOT Design-Build Project Goals

On the New I-64 Project in St, Louis, the project goals were:

• Deliver the project within the program budget of $535 million
• Complete the project no later than October 1, 2010
• Maximize the mobility and capacity improvements in the corridor when construction is complete
• Minimize and mitigate construction impacts to customers through construction staging and communication efforts
• Provide a quality product that produces a long lasting transportation facility
• Demonstrate a quality construction and communication effort that creates a new model for doing a design-build project.

On the kcICON Project in Kansas City, the project goals were:

• Deliver the Interstate 29/35 corridor improvements within the total program budget of $245 million.
• Construct a landmark Missouri River bridge(s) that can be reasonably maintained to provide more than a century of useful service.
• Maximize safety, mobility, aesthetic and capacity improvements in the corridor.
• Engage stakeholders and the community to successfully develop and deliver the project.
• Meet or beat the project completion date of October 31, 2011.

139.1.2 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation

After developing project goals, the next step to successful design-build delivery involve two exercises, risk assessment and risk allocation, that are the keys to maximizing the probability of project implementation achieving the desired outcome and meeting or exceeding the project goals. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are two distinct analyses used for different purposes on design-build projects.

Risk assessment involves an analysis of the risks involved on a project that likely would cause a design-build contractor to include cost or schedule contingencies in its proposal, and an analysis of which of those risks can be avoided or mitigated by MoDOT, prior to design-build contractor selection.

Risk allocation, on the other hand, is an allocation between MoDOT and the contractor of responsibility for risks that cannot be avoided. Risk should be allocated to the party best able to manage each risk. Both the risk assessment and risk allocation analyses are evaluated in support of the project goals.

In order to achieve the most effective design-build risk allocation, MoDOT must first conduct a risk assessment to define what risks are involved on a project that can be avoided or mitigated prior to design-build contractor selection. As discussed in more detail below, MoDOT will evaluate the significance of the risk, the effort required of MoDOT to alleviate or mitigate the risk and the probability of impact of the risk.

After MoDOT has performed a thorough risk assessment and determined how risks can be completely avoided or has determined the degree to which a risk is able to be mitigated, MoDOT will allocate the risks remaining on the project to the party who is in the best position to manage and control the risk or the impact of the risk, based upon a consideration of the risk and its impact to the goals of the project. The desired result of a risk assessment/allocation effort is to use MoDOT resources to avoid or mitigate as much risk as possible prior to design-build contractor selection paying close attention to the high impact, high probability risks and to allocate the remaining risks to the party that will be most able to effectively manage the risk.

139.1.2.1 Purpose and Objective of Risk Assessment/Risk Allocation

A thorough risk assessment will allow MoDOT to clearly identify those tasks that should be undertaken by MoDOT that will eliminate or reduce risk to the project goals. It will also allow MoDOT to determine the priority of the risk mitigation efforts required and to allocate the necessary resources efficiently to the areas of greatest risk that result in the most significant risk reduction.

After MoDOT has completed its risk assessment, an evaluation of the party who is in the best position to manage and control all remaining risks (or impacts of remaining risks) further determines the most effective allocation of risks between MoDOT and the design-build contractor to best achieve the project goals. The allocations of the remaining risks will be set forth in the contract documents.

139.1.2.2 Content of Risk Assessment/Risk Allocation

A Risk Assessment Worksheet will be used to analyze project risks and determine mitigation efforts, if any, that will be performed by MoDOT prior to having selected a design-build contractor. The steps in the risk assessment process are as follows:

• Once a risk assessment area is identified, specific risk elements are identified and documented on the risk worksheet under the heading “Risk Element”.

• Then MoDOT will determine, based on a 0 to 6 scale (6 being the greatest mpact – 0 being no impact), the significance of impact that each risk element could have to the goals of the project. The impact factor will be recorded in column A.

• MoDOT will next determine, based on the same 0 to 6 scale (6 being the greatest effort – 0 being no effort), the magnitude of effort that will be required to avoid or mitigate each risk. The level of effort factor is recorded in column B.

• Thirdly, MoDOT will then determine the probability of the risk impact occurring if no action to avoid or mitigate the risk is taken. The probability factor will be recorded in column C.

• Based on the risk assessment, a Risk Factor will be calculated (A*B*C). The greater the Risk Factor, the higher the priority for MoDOT to identify mitigation efforts that should be undertaken to reduce the risk and the greater level of resources should be employed to mitigate the risk.

• The last step in the risk assessment process is to identify the risk mitigation tasks that MoDOT will undertake to reduce risks to the project goals.

Examples of areas of risks that should be evaluated during a risk assessment include:

A. Drainage – Example: (Are there third party approvals necessary for drainage design?)

B. Environmental – Example: (Are there environmental permits that MoDOT can obtain in advance of the Request for Proposal?)

C. Method of Handling Traffic – Example: (Can MoDOT agree to detour routes with a public entity?)

D. Noise Walls – Example: (Can MoDOT agree with the public to a height, elevation, etc. of a noise wall or to a process to reach agreement on a noise wall?)

E. Public Information – Example: (Are there research efforts that can assist the design-build contractor in formulating a public information plan or method of handling traffic plan?)

F. Right of way – Examples: (Are there parcels that acquisition can be avoided? Can the amount of right of way acquired be minimized?)

G. Roadway design – Example (Are there variances or exceptions that can be acquired or granted prior to issuance of the request for proposal?)

H. Structures – Example (Are there approvals or variances that can be obtained in advance of the RFP?)

I. Third Party Agreements and Permits (other than environmental) – examples (Are there local IGA’s, railroad agreements, process agreements, standards agreements that can be obtained in advance of the RFP?)

J. Utilities – Example (Are there utilities that can be relocated prior to the RFP? Are there SUE locations of utilities that can be provided to the design-build contractor before the RFP?)

The risk allocation is an assessment of which party is in the best position to manage and control the remaining risks or impacts to the remaining risks. The risk allocation must be conducted based upon the remaining risks. Risk allocations are allocations between MoDOT and the design-build contractor of responsibility for risks that cannot be avoided.

Examples of areas of risks that should be evaluated during a risk allocation include:

A. Drainage – Example: (Who is best able to perform studies of off-site flows, hydrology, etc?)

B. Environmental – Example: (MoDOT may be in the best position to obtain a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, however, the design-build contractor is the best party to obtain new permits or variances to existing environmental permits based upon its design.)

C. Geotechnical – Example: (Once MoDOT has determined the extent of an adequate geotechnical investigation, it is normally the design-build contractor who should assume the risk of deviations from the borings.)

D. Insurance – Example: (What type of insurance would be advantageous for each project - traditional insurance, OCIP, CCIP, PCIP?)

E. Lighting Agreements – Example: (MoDOT may be able to reduce the design-build contractor’s contingency by reaching an agreement with the power company utility owner related to temporary lighting.)

F. Maintenance During Construction Example -- (While the risk of maintenance during construction is most appropriate allocated to the design-build contractor, the risk of extraordinary maintenance of the project during construction would best be assumed by MoDOT.)

G. Method of Handling Traffic – Example (Are there agreements that MoDOT can enter into with local jurisdictions for alternate routes?)

H. Noise Walls – Example (While MoDOT is probably the best party to assume the risk of dealing with the public regarding many noise wall issues during the environmental process, the design-build contractor is the best party to determine where the noise walls are required based upon its final design.)

I. Public Information – Example (The design-build contractor is in the best position to identify and communicate daily coping messages to the public.)

J. Right of Way – Example (While in most situations, MoDOT is the party best able to acquire permanent right of way, the design-build contractor is in the best position to determine the necessary temporary right of way for the project.)

K. Utilities – Example (MoDOT can avoid high utility contingencies by reaching a master utility agreement with utility owners that define a process for relocations caused by the project.)

L. Value Engineering – (MoDOT can encourage value engineering by sharing the savings with the design-build contractor.)

Once these risks have been evaluated and allocated they should be clearly communicated in the Draft Request for Proposals.

139.1.2.3 Examples

An example Risk Assessment Worksheet and portions of a Risk Allocation/Decision Matrix are included for reference.

139.1.3 Policy Issues

Creating a design-build program requires developing technical specifications, contract provisions, selection procedures, quality systems and a contract administration organization that may differ significantly from those utilized by MoDOT on design-bid-build projects. As a result, it is important to utilize a white paper process that thoroughly develops a proposed approach for significant design-build elements and communicates the approach to all interested MoDOT employees. The white papers are ultimately approved by the MoDOT policy makers for incorporation into the design-build Request for Proposal (RFP).

139.1.3.1 Purpose and Objective of the White Paper Process

The purpose of the white paper process is to document a recommended approach to particular design-build concepts and to receive concurrence by MoDOT management and, ultimately, approval by the Chief Engineer.

139.1.3.2 Content of White Paper Process

The Design-Build Leadership Team has developed a process to develop state-of-the-art design-build provisions for the MoDOT design-build program and is described below.

Step 1. Design-build concepts are developed and described in white paper format.

Step 2. The draft white paper is reviewed, discussed and finalized by the Design-Build Leadership Team.

Step 3. The draft white paper will be submitted to and reviewed by various MoDOT Division Directors/Engineers when the white paper affects their jurisdiction, and by the Chief Engineer. Draft white papers may be provided to other select stakeholders if MoDOT determines that it would be advantageous. Comments received will be reviewed by the Design-Build Leadership Team. If the Design-Build Leadership Team deems the comments to be consistent with nationally recognized design-build best practices, the comments will be incorporated into the draft white paper. If comments received during the stakeholder reviews differ from the original approach finalized by the Design-Build Leadership Team, both design-build concepts will be presented to the Chief Engineer for direction.

Step 4. The white paper is presented to the Chief Engineer for approval.

Approved white papers should be considered as living documents to be updated on an as needed basis to provide MoDOT’s current policies on various design-build topics. Lessons learned captured from completed design-build projects will be the bases for proposed changes to previously approved design-build white papers. Revised white papers will be brought to the current MoDOT Design-Build Leadership Team for review and approval to provide direction to be used in the formulation of future design-build RFPs.

139.1.3.3 Example

Attached is an example White Paper that has been prepared by the Design-Build Leadership Team and approved by the Chief Engineer.

139.1.4 Request for Qualifications

A two-phase, design-build procurement process begins with short-listing the most highly qualified Submitters based on qualifications submitted in response to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). The second phase consists of the submission of price and technical proposals in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP). During the RFQ process, MoDOT will identify for the submitters the qualifications it will evaluate to determine which of the Submitters are the most qualified to perform the design-build project. The items in the RFQ that are used to determine the short-list should reflect the goals of the project.

The short-listing process for a design-build procurement should not be confused with the pre-qualification process used for design-bid-build projects. Short-listing submitters for a design-build project identifies the most highly qualified submitters where prequalifying contractors for design-bid-build projects identifies all contractors that are qualified to submits bids.

MoDOT is required by state statute and rules to short-list no more than five and no fewer than two submitters.

139.1.4.1 Purpose and Objective of the RFQ Process

There are several objectives of the RFQ process. The primary objective is to determine how submitters will be short-listed as the most highly qualified to perform the design-build project. The RFQ provides MoDOT with the opportunity to communicate to the submitters which team member qualifications/experience are most important to identify in their Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). It also allows MoDOT to identify what qualifications/experience of the design-build team’s key personnel are required to be included in the SOQ. The RFQ may also require the submitters to describe their past performance in areas such as safety, schedule, budget and community satisfaction. It may be necessary to request a team’s general approach and philosophy to the management of the project, quality management or community relations approach (items such as these are best requested in an RFP, however, in some cases these types of items may need to be included in a RFQ to be able to determine the most highly qualified teams because of the project goals or the nature of the project, e.g. size, complexity etc.).

The RFQ submittal requirements should be focused on identifying the teams that have the highest probability of achieving or exceeding the project’s goals. Even though there are a number of common items found in many RFQs such as a description of the project, the goals for the project, and the general procurement schedule, each short-listing process should be unique and tailored to MoDOT’s desired outcome. Items MoDOT should consider when developing RFQ requirements are:

• The project goals.

• Is local design and construction experience important?

• Is design-build experience important?

• Are the qualifications and availability of key personnel important?

• Is the long term financial stability of the team important? – consider for very large projects

• Minimize duplicating information requested in the RFQ and RFP. This reduces the cost of competing for all teams involved with the design-build procurement process and promotes long tern interest in the MoDOT design-build program.

• What management systems/philosophies are important, if any?

• What past performance measures need to be included, if any?

• What rating criteria will be used to determine the most highly qualified submitters? (It is important to develop short-listing criteria that allows MoDOT to determine if there is a clear separation between the most highly qualified teams and all other submitters.)

It is generally accepted by the design-build industry that a short-listing process is a very beneficial step included in a design-build procurement process. This view is held by many because the process may identify, very early in the procurement process, a team (or teams) that has a very unlikely chance of being selected. This benefits the non short-listed teams because they do not waste their time and money competing for a project for which they have a very low probability of being successful. On the other hand, the short-listed teams have a higher probability of being successful, so they put greater resources into developing Proposals resulting in higher quality Proposals (risk vs. reward), a more efficient Proposal review process, and higher quality teams submitting proposals.

139.1.4.2 Contents of the RFQ

The RFQ should include a brief description of the project, the project goals, the estimated contract price (if known), and the project schedule. The RFQ also includes instructions for future team communications with MoDOT. At the time of issuance of the RFQ, the only future communications should be through MoDOT’s project manager and only as allowed by the RFQ. For example, a process and deadline for any questions or requests for clarifications related to the RFQ process will be defined in the RFQ. The RFQ includes requirements related to firms that are ineligible to participate on a Submitter’s team, and usually identifies firms that are working with MoDOT to prepare the procurement documents (RFP). MoDOT’s design-build rules, 7 CSR 10-24.010 through 7 CSR 10-24.413, provide that consultants and sub-consultants who assist the commission in the preparation of an RFP document will not be allowed to participate as an offeror (submitter) or join a team submitting a proposal in response to the RFP. However, the commission may determine that there is not conflict of interest for a consultant or sub-consultant where:

1. The role of the consultant or sub-consultant was limited to provision of preliminary design, reports, or similar “low-level” documents that will be incorporated into the RFP, and did not include assistance in development of instructions to offerors or evaluation criteria, or

2. Where all documents and reports delivered to the commission by the consultant or sub-consultant are made available to all offerors.

The rules further provide that all solicitations for design-build contracts, including related contracts for inspection, administration or auditing services, must direct the offeror to this section of the rules (7 CSR 10-24.080). In addition to MoDOT’s rules, on projects involving federal funds, the federal regulations have similar provisions in 23 CFR Subchapter A.

The RFQ requires the submitters to identify their major participants and key personnel, as defined by MoDOT. It further defines a process where the major participants and key personnel can only be changed by the submitters with prior approval of MoDOT. The RFQ sets forth the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) goal(s) for the project and identifies where the Submitters may obtain copies of a directory of DBEs. In addition to setting an overall DBE goal, MoDOT may set separate DBE goals for design and for construction. The design DBE goals would be based on the percentage of DBE design consultants that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the preliminary cost estimate for design on the project. The construction DBE goals would be based on the percentage of DBE subcontractors that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the construction work on the project. The methodology of setting each goal should be the same that is used for design-bid-build projects.

The heart of the RFQ is a description of the factors that will be evaluated by MoDOT to determine the most highly qualified Submitters. Examples of the types of factors include the experience of the major participants in similar projects, the safety records of the major participants, and the experience and qualifications of proposed key personnel (which positions and minimum qualifications are defined by MoDOT). The RFQ describes the method the statements of qualifications will be evaluated and scored.

The RFQ includes requirements regarding the Submitter’s legal structure, bonding capacity and additional financial requirements, if any. On most projects, assurance of required bonding capacity of the offerors is adequate to show financial capability of the submitters.

Finally, the RFQ sets forth the format for the statements of qualifications the requirements for submittals, i.e. due date and time, number of copies, etc., and the protest procedures. As shown in EPG 139.1.4.3 below, MoDOT will provide forms for most of the information requested of the submitters.

139.1.4.3 Example

An example RFQ is included for reference.

139.1.5 Request for Proposal

Once the risk assessment and risk allocation processes have been completed or are far enough along to provide adequate guidance, the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents can be developed. An RFP defines the legal, technical and design-build contractor selection requirements for the project. EPG 139.1.5 focuses on the contents and concepts involved in a two-step design-build procurement process, as that will most likely be MoDOT’s approach to design-build procurement. However, MoDOT’s design-build rules and FHWA’s design-build regulations allow for a one-step procurement process (modified design-build) that is typically used for small, non-complex projects that includes a low bid selection process.

139.1.5.1 Purpose and Objective of the RFP Process

There are three main objectives of the Request for Proposals process. First, the RFP should provide clear, concise and flexible technical requirements that provides for a quality project. Second, an RFP should provide contract terms that fairly allocates risk between MoDOT and the contractor. Last, an RFP should include contractor selection criteria that are designed to achieve or exceed the goals of the project and to the party best able to manage high quality, clear and flexible requirements that achieve quality, cost-effective proposals from potential design-build contractors. The process provides MoDOT with the opportunity to discover whether it has misallocated or overlooked risks from the contractor’s perspective and to make better decisions. The result is a final RFP that clearly describes and defines MoDOT’s “must have” requirements for the project while allowing the maximum amount of flexibility for the proposers.

MoDOT has proven to be a leader in providing flexibility on design-build RFPs. The clear direction of MoDOT’s management has been to define for the proposers ONLY minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for each technical discipline. MoDOT then allows proposers to submit standards, specifications, designs and approaches that have been used on other projects and to approve their use unless there is a reason that the approach cannot apply to the MoDOT project’s situation. This approach has been so successful for MoDOT in St. Louis and in Kansas City that other states have followed MoDOT’s lead in providing maximum flexibility.

RFP Documents. The purpose of the ITP is to define for the proposers the form and contents of their proposals and to describe the criteria that MoDOT will use to score the proposals. The purpose of the form and content requirements is twofold. Specifying the format ensures that the proposals will be uniform and therefore easier to compare against each other. Moreover, consistency in formatting places the proposers in a more equal setting, allowing the proposers to focus on the substantive contents of their proposals.

Specification of the evaluation criteria allows MoDOT to prioritize for the proposers the requirements MoDOT believes best meet the project goals. The inclusion of the evaluation criteria is also required by MoDOT statute (Section 227.107, RSMo, Supp. 2002) and rules (7 CSR 10-24.210).

The purpose of Book 1 of the RFP (also referred to as the “contract”) is to define the legal parameters of the design-build contract and to provide for flexibility for the designbuild contractor. Book 1 provides, among other things, the requirements for payment, change orders, project acceptance and dispute resolution. Book 1 designates the areas where, after award of the contract, the design-build contractor has the flexibility to propose cost-savings changes to the contract requirements that are equal to or better than the technical requirements. Book 1 also distinguishes the specific areas where costsavings proposals are treated as value engineering proposals.

A critical exhibit to Book 1 is the definitions exhibit, applicable to all of the RFP documents. Many definitions in the RFP are unique to the design-build process and have been changed from the traditional design-bid-build definitions to conform to the risk allocation decisions that have been made for the project. (see [[#139.1.2 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation |EPG 139.1.2 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation]]). In order to understand the technical requirements of the RFP, it is necessary to understand the applicable definitions.

Book 2 provides the project specific technical requirements of the RFP. The purpose of the technical requirements is to define the “box” that the design-build contractor needs to stay within in designing and building the project. The goal is to provide as much flexibility to the design-build contractor as possible to take full advantage of design-build innovation to meet or exceed project goals. However, if there are specific items that MoDOT has determined it requires as part of the project, those should be specifically identified.

Book 3 includes applicable standards, data and reports. The purpose of Book 3 is to provide the design-build contractor with the data, reports and studies for which MoDOT guarantees the accuracy and assumes the risk for any necessary changes. For example, if changes become necessary due to errors in Book 3 reports, MoDOT assumes the risk of those changes. MoDOT also provides that the proposers can use alternative standards, specifications and requirements, subject to approval by MoDOT. The proposers have the option of using MoDOTs standards, specifications and requirements as a baseline and proposing alternative standards for specific portions of the project. The standards ultimately agreed to by MoDOT and the proposers are referred to as “Additional Applicable Standards.” If standards or specifications in Book 3 are amended after the proposers have submitted their proposals and MoDOT desires the design-build contractor to comply with the amendments, MoDOT will assume the risk of those changes.

Book 4 documents include the project right-of-way plans and any requirements from which the design-build contractor cannot deviate, such as architectural requirements that are applicable to the project’s corridor. The purpose of Book 4 documents is to provide for the design-build contractor the requirements that cannot be modified except through a value engineering process. In other words, the risk of changes to the Book 4 documents is the design-build contractor’s risk.

The fifth group of documents in the RFP process is “reference documents”. The sole purpose of the reference documents is to provide the proposers with as much information as possible, even though MoDOT does not wish to guarantee the accuracy of the documents.

RFP Process. After MoDOT issues a draft RFP, it conducts an “industry review”. The purpose of the RFP process of industry review is to give MoDOT the opportunity to listen and evaluate the concerns of the design-build construction industry in a confidential setting. Through the process, MoDOT can correct mistakes and unclear provisions in its draft RFP based on the feedback of the proposers. MoDOT can also revise its allocation of particular risks if the Proposers provide feedback that a different allocation is more beneficial to both parties. The fact that the industry review process is a confidential process allows each proposer to candidly discuss the contents of the draft RFP without fear that its questions will be communicated to other proposers and “give away” its proposal strategies.

Two processes that have been used on other design-build contracts but have not been used by MoDOT include Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) and Technical Approach (TA) processes. The purpose of the ATC/TA process is to give the proposers the opportunity to come up with innovative alternatives to the requirements in the RFP developed in accordance with MoDOT standards. The objective of the TA process is to provide the proposers with the opportunity to submit approaches to technical solutions in their proposals to MoDOT for a determination of whether the approach complies with the RFP. The ATC and TA submittals are confidential so that proposers will be encouraged to propose innovative, cost-effective solutions.

Instead of using the ATC or TA process, MoDOT has been the national leader in providing less RFP requirements and solutions, and instead allowing each proposer to come up with its own innovative technical solutions in a manner that provides MoDOT with a maximum scope for its project. MoDOT has found through experience that this method of working with the proposers encourages creativity and results in projects with more scope.

MoDOT will issue addenda after the final RFP has been issued. The purpose of the addenda process is to allow MoDOT to supplement and make corrections to the final RFP.

139.1.5.2 Contents of the RFP

RFP Documents. The Instructions to Proposers (ITP) is used to provide proposers with instructions on the form and content of their proposals. The ITP includes instructions to the proposers on the form and contents of the proposal. The ITP also includes instructions on how to propose project scope and standards, specifications and requirements in the proposal.

In addition to instructions to the proposers on what to include in the proposals, the ITP includes a description of the criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals and the formula or methods used to score them. An example of the specific issues that traditionally are found in the ITP is included in EPG 139.1.5.3 Example below.

Examples of areas included in Book 1 of the RFP include:

A. A description of the contract documents and how they are to be interpreted, e.g., order of preference of the books included in the contract documents, federal requirements, project deadlines, and definitions applicable to all of the RFP documents.

B. A description of the legal obligations of the design-build contractor, including performance of all of the work in accordance with the RFP requirements and responsibility for final design.

C. Information supplied to the design-build contractor and the legal significance of the information.

D. Requirements for notice to proceed, scheduling and project completion. A provision that is unique to the design-build process is issuance of a notice-to proceed that allows the design-build contractor to begin construction of the project only after submitting a cost-loaded schedule that is necessary for MoDOT to make monthly progress payments to the design-build contractor as the work progresses.

E. Change order procedures, including right of way and utility work that is added or deleted from the scope of the design-build contractor’s work in the RFP. Design-build RFPs include the traditional value engineering provisions, however, a unique concept that has been developed to give the design-build contractors flexibility is the “Equal or Better” process, which allows the design-build contractor to propose innovative, cost-saving solutions in lieu of the RFP requirements. As long as these proposed solutions are equal to or better than the requirements of the RFP, the design-build contractor recognizes the cost savings from using the alternatives.

F. DBE, EEO, subcontractor, labor requirements and key personnel requirements. The DBE requirements are modified for the design-build process, since the design-build contractor does not have the final design when it submits its proposal and therefore it cannot name all of its DBEs at the time of the proposal. The key personnel concept allows MoDOT to define certain key personnel positions on the project that, once identified by the design-build contractor, require MoDOT approval before the design-build contractor is allowed to switch and replace the positions.

G. Surety bond, insurance, maintenance responsibilities, suspension, termination, default, damages and indemnification provisions.

H. Partnering and dispute resolution provisions.

I. Miscellaneous legal requirements, including provisions related to acceptance, warranties, document requirements, and cooperation and coordination with others.

In preparing the technical requirements, MoDOT will evaluate its standard operating requirements and procedures and modify them, where appropriate, to better fit the flexible design-build process and conform to the risk allocation decisions applicable to the project. In preparing Book 2, MoDOT will negotiate and include known third party requirements to further define for the design-build contractor the minimum applicable requirements. An objective of Book 2 is achievement of the delicate balance of including adequate definition of the minimum acceptable requirements applicable to the project while providing the design-build contractor with the maximum extent of flexibility possible. An example of the technical areas included in Book 2 is set forth below in EPG 139.1.5.3 Example.

The general technical areas that are addressed in Book 2 include:

A. Basic Configuration. The basic configuration concept is the “envelope” of right of way and physical requirements that the design-build contractor will have to meet to design and construct the project. The basic configuration is determined by MoDOT either by utilizing the design in the environmental documents prepared for FHWA approval of the project, or a revised minimum amount of design necessary to allow MoDOT to further refine the “envelope” for the proposers. Refer to EPG 139.1.6 Basic Configuration.

B. Project Management. The project management requirements include the invoicing and scheduling requirements necessary to manage the project.

C. Quality Management

D. Public Information. The public information requirements define the responsibilities for the design-build contractor for certain communication efforts that traditionally are the responsibility of MoDOT but which in the design-build context are best given to the design-build contractor.

E. Environmental Requirements

F. Third Party Agreements

G. Utility Relocations. Since the final design is not known at the time of the proposal, a different type of master utility agreement that defines a process that the utility owner, MoDOT and the design-build contractor will follow is typically required to successfully accommodate utility relocations in a design-build project.

H. Right of way

I. Geotechnical, Roadway Pavements and Structure Foundations

J. Earthwork

K. Drainage

L. Roadways

M. Signing, Pavement Marking, Signalization, Lighting and Intelligent Transportation Systems

N. Structures

O. Method of Handling Traffic

P. Landscaping

Q. Maintenance During Construction

R. Modifications to Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. While most of the standard specifications and special provisions are applicable to design-build projects, many of them must be modified in some manner to reflect the design-build process. As an example, the price adjustments for nonconforming but acceptable work are applicable to design-build projects, but design-build projects have no unit prices that are contemplated in the standard specifications. The specification or special provision must, therefore, be modified for the design-build process.

Book 3 includes two categories of documents. The first category includes project-specific data, agreements, permits and reports. Some examples of Book 3 documents include agreements that the design-build contractor will be required to comply with between MoDOT and third parties, permits that MoDOT has obtained for the project, and applicable NEPA environmental documents. Book 3 may also include geotechnical or hydrological data, studies and reports if MoDOT decides during the risk assessment/risk allocation process to stand behind those reports. (If MoDOT does not intend to stand behind any of those reports, they should be included in the reference documents described below). The second category of Book 3 documents are federal standards and requirements applicable to all MoDOT projects and the contractor’s proposed standards, requirements and specifications. For example, AASHTO standards, ANSI standards, FHWA guidelines and MoDOT or other DOT and FHWA applicable design standards are included in Book 3. Since design manuals have been written as internal, guidance documents, MoDOT must review design manuals and ensure that their provisions are enforceable, either by incorporating enforceable requirements in Book 2 or by making revisions to the manuals in Book 3. Book 3 documents include those that have been proposed by the design-build contractor and approved by MoDOT.

The most important analysis for MoDOT to perform is a determination of which of the documents it will accept the risk of accuracy (Book 3, applicable standards, data and reports) and which will be provided to the design-build contractor for information only (reference documents).

Book 4 documents include the project right of way plans and any requirements from which the design-build contractor cannot deviate except through a value engineering change order. These documents include the right-of-way plans and standards such as architectural requirements that may be required for the project’s corridor.

Reference documents include any preliminary reports or design documents that have been prepared for the project, the accuracy of which MoDOT does not guarantee. The reference documents are provided to the design-build contractor for information only, and the contractor is not entitled to a change order for any errors in them.

Normally what is included in Books 3 and 4 of the RFP documents and in the reference documents is an index to each of those documents. However, for the documents that are not generally available, MoDOT should make copies of each of those documents available to each of the short-listed proposers.

RFP Process. Once the RFP documents have been drafted and the most qualified proposers have been selected (see EPG 139.1.4 Request for Qualifications), MoDOT will conduct an industry review process to meet with the design-build contractors who have been short-listed to give them the opportunity to comment on and request clarifications of the draft RFP. Based upon the industry comments, MoDOT may elect to revise and/or clarify the RFP documents before finalizing them.

Once the final RFP is issued, MoDOT will conduct confidential meetings with the shortlisted design-build proposers to allow them to submit their proposed scope ideas and proposed standards and designs that have been approved on other projects. This process allows the proposers to submit to MoDOT for approval alternative approaches to certain requirements in the RFP and creative solutions to the problems the project is intended to correct. MoDOT should provide the proposers feedback on what it values related to the proposals without leading the proposers to technical approaches it prefers. The discussions with individual proposers are confidential so that proposers will be encouraged to propose innovative, cost-effective solutions.

MoDOT will continually review the RFP documents as they are developed through the RFP process, during the industry review process and after the RFP has been finalized. Once MoDOT has issued the final RFP, MoDOT will issue addenda to the final RFP, as necessary, which addenda will be incorporated into the final contract between MoDOT and the design-build contractor. MoDOT should attempt to avoid last minute major changes to the RFP requirements.

139.1.5.3 Example

An example of the RFP documents is included for reference. (Attach the New I-64 RFP as the example).

139.1.6 Basic Configuration

Design-build procurements, which typically rely on some level of an owner-supplied preliminary design as the basis for obtaining proposals on a project, often include requirements relating to the “Basic Configuration” of the project. As shown by the examples below, Basic Configuration definitions vary in style from broadly defined to complex, intricate concepts.

139.1.6.1 Purpose and Objective of the Basic Configuration

The purpose of the Basic Configuration definition is to define the degree of design flexibility provided to the design-build contractor and the degree to which the design–build contractor can rely upon the owner-supplied preliminary design included in the Request for Proposals (RFP).

Design documents, to a great extent, define the requirements or “scope of work” for a contractor using the traditional design-bid-build method of project delivery. However, in design-build delivery, it is advantageous to provide the design-builder with a high degree of design flexibility by including any owner-supplied preliminary design in the RFP as “information only”. By doing this, the design-build contractor is not required to follow the preliminary design but, in return, cannot rely upon the preliminary design documents included in the RFP. However, there usually are key project components that are identified in the preliminary design that form the foundation of a project’s scope. In these instances, the owner can choose to include those key project components in a basic configuration definition therefore making the referenced components contract requirements. In most cases, at least part of the basic configuration definition is based on the preliminary design documents. Although the design-build contractor cannot rely upon the accuracy of the owner-supplied preliminary design, they can rely upon portions of the preliminary design that are included by reference into the basic configuration definition.

The basic configuration concept serves the following purposes:

1. It allows the owner to define the minimum requirements or “must have” project components.

2. It defines the basic elements of the project from which the design-build contractor may not deviate without an owner approved change order.

3. It defines which elements of the preliminary design are contract requirements.

4. It allows the owner to define the degree of flexibility provided to the design-build contractor in its design of major project elements – “design window”.

5. It allows the design-build contractor to incorporate changes to the owner provided design within the defined “design window” – design flexibility.

6. It can give the owner the ability to share in any cost savings associated with changes to the basic configuration – value engineering.

7. It allows the design-build contractor to rely on the owner provided basic configuration design elements for proposal pricing.

8. It gives the design-build contractor the flexibility to optimize its design.

When owners define the basic configuration for a project, the contract documents contain provisions restricting the design-build contractor from making material changes to the basic configuration without owner approval, but also providing that if the basic configuration is not constructible, the owner will pay the design-build contractor’s costs of fixing the problem.

139.1.6.2 Content of the Basic Configuration

The Basic Configuration definition usually includes the vertical and horizontal geometric limitations for the contractor on a project, as well as a general description of the project termini. The definition may also include general requirements such as the general types or sizes of bridges, right of way limits, the general types and locations of interchanges and the numbers of lanes and lane widths. MoDOT’s approach to defining basic configuration is to limit it to the minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for the project, e.g., right of way limitations based on intergovernmental agreements.

139.1.6.3 Examples of Basic Configuration Definitions

Several examples of Basic Configuration definitions are included for reference.

The Basic Configuration is defined as follows:

• Direct interstate to interstate connections shall be provided at the junction of I-64 and I-170

• At least one additional mainline capacity lane shall be provided on I-64 from west of Spoede Road to I-170 in both directions

• All Work is to be constructed within the right of way shown in Book 4

• Scope elements included in the Contractor’s Proposal shall be incorporated into the Basic Configuration

(a) The mainline horizontal and mainline vertical alignments,

In determining whether a material change in Basic Configuration to the mainline alignment (item (a) of the Basic Configuration definition has occurred, the following standards shall apply: no material change in Basic Configuration shall be deemed to have occurred as the result of any horizontal alignment shift of the mainline of less than 50 ft. and/or any vertical alignment shift of the mainline of less than two feet from the alignment shown on the Project Definition Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no change in the vertical alignment for the Oso Segment shall be considered a material change in Basic Configuration unless it causes any component of the Project or the Ultimate Corridor (including utility Relocations and drainage facilities but excluding private property access roads) to be located outside of the Agency Provided Construction Limits.

(b) The general size, general location and type of bridges as defined by Caltrans Bridge Design Practice Manual No. 2,

In determining whether a material change in Basic Configuration to the general size of bridges (item (b) of the Basic Configuration definition has occurred, no material change in Basic Configuration shall be deemed to have occurred as the result of the change of the surface area of bridge, measured from inside face of parapet to inside surface of parapet and from beginning of bridge to end of bridge, of 5% or less.

(c) The mainline and ramp Typical Roadway Sections set forth in Agency Supplied Document 22 as modified in order to incorporate the number of lanes identified in Agency Supplied Document 8,

(d) The general location of the toll plazas,

(e) The general location of interchanges and the type of interchanges, and

(f) The termini of the Project, as generally shown in the Project Definition Documents, at the existing Foothill Corridor (State Route 241), State Route 91, State Route 133/I-5 and Jamboree Road.

(a) The mainline horizontal and mainline vertical alignments, and

(b) The general location of interchanges and the type of interchanges.

In determining whether a material change in Basic Configuration to the mainline alignment (item (a) of the Basic Configuration definition) has occurred, the following standards shall apply: no material change in Basic Configuration shall be deemed to have occurred as the result of any horizontal alignment shift of the mainline of less than 30 ft. and/or any vertical alignment shift of the mainline of less than 6 feet from the alignment shown on the Concept Design Documents.

RFP FOR PROPOSED PUBLIC-PRIVATE TOLL ROAD PROJECT

a) Description of northern and southern limits, but states that work beyond the northern limit is not considered a material change in Basic Configuration.

b) Specified number of lanes in each direction, not including the acceleration and deceleration lanes nor the climbing lanes where required.

c) Approximate location of interchanges and structures.

d) Specified number of lanes at Mainline Toll Plaza.

e) General description of toll lanes on ramps.

(a) The general termini shall be as shown in the Reference Drawings.

(b) The Highway horizontal and vertical alignments shall be as shown in the Reference Drawings. Additionally, the following shall be allowed without being considered a change to the Basic Configuration.

• The vertical alignment for the Highway may be changed up to 2 ft. down or 5 ft. up, except for the Southmoor area (defined as the area between Hampden Avenue and Quincy Avenue) which can be changed up to 2 ft. down or 2 ft. up.

• The horizontal alignment for the Highway may be changed up to 10 ft., or within the right of way limits as shown in Book 4, whichever is less, except for the east side of I-225 within property under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.

(c) The type and general locations of interchanges shall be as shown in the References Drawings, and consistent with the following elements from the FHWA approved Interstate Access Modification request:

• Verification that the existing interchange and/or local roads in the Corridor cannot provide the necessary access, nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal.

• Verification that all reasonable alternatives for design options, location, and transportation system management type improvements have been assessed and provided for.

• Verification that the proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall include an analysis of sections of interstate to, and including at least the first adjacent interchange on either side, and shall include crossroads.

• Verification that the proposed access connects to a public road only, provides for all traffic movements, and meets or exceeds current standards for federal-aid projects on the interstate system.

• Verification that the proposed access is consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD).

(d) The mainline and ramp number of lanes shall be as shown in the Reference Drawings, and in Book 3 - Laneage Line Diagram.

(e) New structures spanning Arapahoe Road shall accommodate a future lane in each direction on Arapahoe Road.

(f) The width of the completed Bridge carrying Evans over I-25 shall accommodate the ultimate future width of Evans.

1. Basic Configuration

The Basic Configuration is defined as work within the right of way that is required to conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 through Colorado Springs with interchange lane configurations and local street lane configurations and typical sections at selected locations as shown in the Reference Drawings. The general geographic limits of the Basic Configuration are graphically shown on Exhibit A - Basic Configuration and Temporary Configuration Diagram.

The Basic Configuration is further defined as follows:

1. Additional Requested Elements (AREs) and portions of AREs as shown on Exhibit B - Additional Requested Elements Diagram which are defined as Basic Configuration elements and are included in the Contractor’s Proposal shall be incorporated into the Basic Configuration.

2. The interchange configurations shall be as shown on the Basic Configuration and Temporary Configuration Diagram, in the Interchange Access Report, and in the Reference Drawings.

3. The HOV lane width for the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 through Colorado Springs shall be 12 feet.

4. Structures:

A. Retaining wall locations shall not require future wall removals to conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25.

B. Bridge superstructures for all I-25 mainline bridges are only required to be constructed to the laneage requirements below.

C. Bridge superstructures for the Bijou Street Bridges are required to be constructed to the Bijou Street laneage requirements below.

5. Pavements and laneage shall be as follows:

A. Concrete pavement for the outside 3 through lanes of the I-25 mainline in each direction with auxiliary lanes for the following areas:

(1) From south of the Bijou Street bridge over I-25 to the match with the existing concrete pavement north of the Bijou Street bridge, except that the inside (left) shoulders shall be 4 ft. wide Hot Bituminous Pavement (HBP).

(2) From north of the I-25 bridge over Garden of the Gods Road to the I-25 bridge over Cottonwood Creek, except that the inside (left) shoulders shall be 4 ft. wide HBP.

B. Concrete pavement for the ramp lanes and shoulders and collector-distributor lanes and shoulders at the Bijou interchange and Nevada/Rockrimmon interchange, as is defined in the Reference Drawings.

C. Additional concrete pavement for a 12 ft. inside (left) shoulder in each direction to provide 3 through lanes in each direction for the I-25 mainline from the I-25 bridge over Cottonwood Creek to the I-25 bridge over Pine Creek.

D. HBP pavement for Bijou Street, excluding concrete pavement at I-25 ramp intersections, to provide:

(1) 2 through lanes in each direction from Spruce Street to the southbound ramps at I-25 with an eastbound left turn lane to I-25 northbound and a westbound left turn lane to Spruce Street, and;

(2) 3 through lanes in each direction from the northbound ramps at I-25 to approximately 600 ft. east of Sierra Madre Street with an eastbound auxiliary lane from the I-25 northbound off-ramp and a westbound right turn lane to northbound I-25, including a new fullwidth bridge over Monument Creek and the Union Pacific Railroad, and;

(3) 2 through lanes westbound from east of Sierra Madre Street to North Cascade Avenue. Also included are a left turn lane and 1 lane connection from westbound Bijou Street to Kiowa Street and an auxiliary lane from southbound Cascade Avenue.

E. HBP pavement for Kiowa Street to provide 3 through lanes eastbound from west of Sierra Madre Street to North Cascade Avenue. Also included is a right turn lane connection from northbound Sierra Madre Street.

F. Minimum laneage requirements for the Bijou Street bridge over I-25 are 3 through lanes with a continuous left turn lane in both the eastbound and westbound directions.

G. HBP pavement for the extension of Corporate Drive to provide 1 through lane in each direction from the west ramps of I-25 and North Nevada Avenue approximately 800 feet to the north and east to its current cul-de-sac south terminus, including a new full-width bridge structure over Monument Creek.

6. Stormwater Quality:

Permanent stormwater quality improvements shall conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 in both location and capacity.

7. Alignments:

A. The horizontal alignment of the highway, as shown in the Reference Drawings, may be changed up to 10 feet.

B. The vertical alignment of the highway, as shown in the Reference Drawings, may be changed up to 2 ft. down and 5 ft. up, except for the Bijou Street overpass area (defined as 100 ft. each side of the centerline of the Bijou Street bridge) where the vertical change shall be limited to 0.5 ft. down and 2 ft. up.

2. Temporary Configuration The Temporary Configuration is defined as work within the right of way that is not required to conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 through Colorado Springs as shown in the Reference Drawings. The general geographic limits of the Temporary Configuration are shown on Exhibit A – Basic Configuration and Temporary Configuration Diagram.

The Temporary Configuration also includes transition areas which transition from the existing highway, local streets, and temporary improvements to the I-25 mainline, ramps, collector-distributor roads, and local streets.

The Temporary Configuration is further defined as follows:

1. Additional Requested Elements (AREs) as shown on Exhibit B - Additional Requested Elements Diagram which are defined as Temporary Configuration elements and are included in the Contractor’s Proposal shall be incorporated into the Temporary Configuration.

2. Structures:

The I-25 bridges over Ellston Street shall be widened and rehabilitated to accommodate 3 through-lanes on I-25 in each direction with 4 ft. inside (left) shoulders.

3. Transition areas shall be included at the following locations:

A. Full-depth HBP from the north end of the I-25 bridge over Colorado Avenue to south of the Bijou Street bridge.

B. Full-depth HBP from the north end of the I-25 bridge over Garden of the Gods Road approximately 525 ft. north.

4. Widening areas shall be included at the following locations:

A. Full-depth HBP widening to the inside of I-25 in each direction including a full-width HBP overlay from south of the Fillmore Street interchange at the existing concrete pavement match point to south of the I-25 bridge over Garden of the Gods Road including:

3 through-lanes in each direction, 4 ft. inside (left) shoulders and full-width outside (right) shoulders, signing, and pavement markings.

B. Full-depth HBP widening to the outside of I-25 in each direction including a full-width HBP overlay from the existing concrete pavement match point north of the I-25 bridge over Pine Creek to the south ramp gores at the Academy interchange including:

3 through-lanes in each direction with 4 ft. inside (left) shoulders and full-width outside (right) shoulders, signing, and pavement markings.

5. Signing and pavement marking reconfigurations shall be included at the following locations:

A. From the existing concrete pavement match point north of the Bijou Street interchange to south of the Uintah Street interchange, reconfigure the existing outside shoulders on I-25 to provide an outside auxiliary lane with an 8 ft. shoulder in each direction.

B. From north of the Fontanero Street interchange to the existing concrete pavement match point south of the Fillmore Street interchange, reconfigure the existing outside shoulders on I-25 to provide an outside auxiliary lane with an 8 ft. shoulder in each direction.

6. North Nevada Avenue improvements shall be provided as follows:

A. HBP reconstruction from the existing Nevada Avenue alignment to meet the Basic Configuration from the Nevada Avenue/I-25 interchange to approximately 2500 ft. south of the interchange (to south of the Fellowship Bible Church entrance), including:

(1) Reconstruction of the Fellowship Bible Church access.

(2) Full movement access to the North Nevada Avenue Frontage Road approximately 400 ft. south of the intersection of North Nevada Avenue and the east ramps of I-25.

Laneage shall provide 2 through lanes in each direction with a full-depth HBP paved median and a transition to the existing roadway.

139.1.7 Contractor Selection Criteria

The two-phased design-build procurement process begins with short-listing the most highly qualified Submitters based on qualifications submitted in response to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and secondly, selecting a design-build contractor based on the criteria that are set forth in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Pursuant to MoDOT’s design-build rules, 7 CSR 10-24.100, the selection criteria options on a standard design-build selection include: (1) lowest price, adjusted low-bid; (2) meets criteria/low bid; (3) weighted criteria process; (4) fixed price/best design; and (5) best value.

The “lowest price, adjusted low-bid” procedure is a process where the price is divided by the qualitative criteria score, and the lowest adjusted price is selected. The “meets criteria/low bid” procedure is a process where MoDOT determines which proposals meet or exceed the criteria set forth in the RFP and then selects the lowest priced proposal. The “weighted criteria” process is a form of best value selection where maximum point values are pre-established for both qualitative and price criteria, and the award is made to the proposal with the highest point score. The “fixed price/best design” selection is a form of the best value selection where the contract price is set by MoDOT, the qualitative criteria is set forth in the RFP, and the proposal that best meets or exceeds the qualitative criteria is selected. The best value selection is determined based on which proposal best meets a combination of price and qualitative criteria.

The criteria that will be used to evaluate the “best value” for MoDOT on all of the above four processes are set forth in the Instructions to Proposers (ITP), which document is issued simultaneously with the RFP. Pursuant to 7 CSR 10-24.200, the ITP will clearly specify all factors and significant sub-factors and their relative importance that will be used to select the proposal that provides the best value for MoDOT. The factors and subfactors should reflect the goals of the project.

139.1.7.1 Purpose and Objective of the Selection Criteria

There are several objectives in establishing the selection criteria. The primary objective is to determine what requirements for a project are most important to MoDOT, and what criteria will identify to MoDOT the proposal that provides the best value. The ITP provides MoDOT with the opportunity to communicate to the proposers the relative importance of the criteria so that the proposers have the opportunity to tailor their proposals to best meet MoDOT’s goals and expectations.

The ITP also allows MoDOT to identify the rules for the proposal process, such as how clarifications will be addressed, what communications will be allowed, what conflict of interest rules are applicable, and what laws and procedural requirements are applicable.

The ITP should indicate the method that will be used to evaluate the selection criteria. Pursuant to 7 CSR 10-24.210, MoDOT can utilize any rating method or combination of methods including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankings.

The selection criteria should be focused on the identifying the proposing team that best meets or exceeds the project’s goals. There are a number of common items found in many ITPs such as a description of the project, the RFP documents, the estimated cost of the project, the procurement schedule, the goals for the project, and the general procurement process, including an industry review procedure, the selection criteria for each project should be unique and tailored to MoDOT’s desired outcome. While MoDOT will consider most of the following example issues important, when developing the selection criteria, MoDOT will need to rank these and other project-specific criteria for each project:

• The project goals.
• Is the amount of public involvement during the project important?
• Is the amount of inconvenience to the public important?
• Is local design and construction experience and/or participation important?
• Is design-build experience important?
• Are environmental compliance issues important?
• Is the budget important?
• Is the contractor’s approach to partnering important?
• Is the schedule important?
• Is the contractor’s approach to quality management important

• Is flexibility for the contractor important?
• What management systems/philosophies are important, if any?

The selection criteria should communicate to the short-listed proposers MoDOT’s expectations and desires for the project. An effective set of criteria will result in high quality proposals.

139.1.7.2 Contents of the Instructions to Proposers

The ITP should include a description of the definitions applicable to the Proposals, the project goals, the maximum contract price (Upset Price or Guaranteed Maximum Price), and the Basic Configuration (or “envelope”) available for the project. Many of the items described in the ITP may cross-reference the RFP.

The ITP should specify what level of team members need to supply the required information such as bonds and federal and state required certifications. The members of the team who must supply this type of information are called “Major Participants.” The reason it is necessary to define who is required to provide that information is that many proposing teams are joint ventures and the joint venture itself has no history and will not exist after completion of the project. So MoDOT needs commitments and information from the existing large members of the joint venture team.

The ITP will also include a description of the proposal process, which includes procedures for communications, industry review, discussions with proposers regarding their innovative ideas, and submission of draft and final proposals and alternative applicable standards (AACs) for MoDOT to consider. If acceptable, the approved AACs are submitted in that proposer’s proposal. The confidential proposal discussions are used to provide the proposers with a maximum amount of flexibility while maintaining minimum requirements in the RFP that are enforceable by MoDOT.

The ITP includes a format, or outline, for the proposals. As part of the format, it is beneficial for MoDOT to include as many forms as possible so it is clearly understood what information and in what form MoDOT expects to be submitted. The ITPs in paragraph IV have examples of forms that have been included on other projects.

The “heart” of the ITP is a description of how MoDOT will evaluate the proposals for the project—the selection criteria. While MoDOT has broad discretion to determine the evaluation factors, price and the quality of the service will always be included as factors for design-build projects. (7 CSR 10-24.200). The factors to evaluate the quality of the proposals include, but are not limited to: (1) compliance with the solicitation requirements; (2) completion schedule; and (3) technical solutions. The ITP should include the bonding requirements including the amount and the format for the bonds. It should also include a requirement that the Proposers submit a detailed plan for meeting the project DBE goal or goals for design and construction. It is important to recognize that the evaluation of the proposals must be based solely on the factors and sub-factors listed in the ITP. (7 CSR 10-24.210).

The ITP should specify in the outline for the proposals exactly what information MoDOT needs to perform its evaluation of the teams. For example, MoDOT may ask for the proposing team’s approach to quality management, and then may specify that the team needs to submit its approach and commitments to quality policy, planning, assurance, control and improvement. (Experience has shown that it is beneficial to require commitments from the proposers as well as approaches.)

The evaluation criteria should specify which criteria are pass-fail and how the remaining factors will be weighted. Weighting of the factors can be based on factors or can be broken down to sub-factors. As stated previously, pursuant to 7 CSR 10-24.210, MoDOT can utilize any rating method or combination of methods including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankings. Whichever process that is used on a project, it should be described in the ITP.

139.1.7.3 Examples of ITPs

Two examples of ITPs are included for reference. The New I-64 Project ITP is an example of a fixed price/best design procurement process. The kcICON Project ITP is an example of a fixed price/best design procurement process, with significant local influence.

139.2 Implementation Procedures

Once a design-build contractor has been selected and a contract has been executed, there are several procedures that MoDOT can implement to ensure success on the project. This EPG 139.2 identifies procedures, processes and policies that have been effective in managing design-build projects. Effective processes will vary depending on the design-build contractor involved, the size of MoDOT’s oversight team and the size and complexity of the project.

139.2.1 MoDOT Management

Once top management at MoDOT has identified to a project team its objectives in addition to obtaining innovative solutions that provide for additional scope, an important policy for management is to empower the MoDOT project team to implement the procurement and oversight of the project. The confidence shown by MoDOT management provides the project team with credibility with the proposers during the procurement phase of the project, and with the selected design-build contractor during implementation. In addition, when the proposers perceive that management has delegated to and has confidence in the project team members, there is no temptation to attempt to “go over the heads” of the team members to pressure MoDOT management into making decisions that may conflict with the decisions of the project teams.

139.2.2 Project Implementation

There are several effective tools for a project manager (director) and project team to assist in implementing the design-build project. The first tool is for the project director to create a small – five to ten member core management team to participate from development of the procurement documents, section of the design-build contractor through oversight of the performance of the work on the project. The MoDOT management team should represent a variety of engineering and other disciplines that are important to the project. They should be located together if possible and should meet at least weekly to discuss first the requirements in the procurement documents. They should lead preparation of the contract documents, i.e., the Requests for Qualifications and Proposals and should lead the industry review and negotiations with the short-listed proposers.

After the contractor has been selected, the project management team should meet on a weekly basis and discuss the progress of partnering with the contractor. Ideally, MoDOT and the contractor will be co-located and will have scheduled meetings on a weekly basis. These meetings should be management team meetings (consisting of management of the MoDOT and the contractor’s teams) where the “big picture” management issues are discussed and resolved. It is also useful to have periodic task force meetings where the discipline managers of MoDOT and the contractor discuss the progress being made on the project in particular disciplines, and where potential issues of disagreement may be raised.

The potential issues or conflicts that MoDOT discipline managers discover during meetings with the contractor task forces should be discussed during MoDOT’s internal management meetings. The management team can then decide the appropriate response to the contractor or can decide if further research of the contract documents is necessary to formulate an appropriate response. It is usually advantageous for the management teams of MoDOT and the contractor to resolve the potentially disputed issues.

An important point for MoDOT management to recognize is that the partnering charter and process that has been agreed to between MoDOT and the contractor is essential to a successful project. However, the contractor must comply with the terms of the contract documents. A common mistake that has been made by many DOTs in managing design-build projects is to fail to distinguish between contract compliance and being a “good partner.” While on all projects there are times that it is appropriate to be flexible with a resolution to a specific problem, MoDOT management on design-build projects should not confuse the “partnering” concept with the contractor’s requirement to comply with the terms of the contract documents.

Finally, each design-build project and each design-build contractor will be different and will have its own personality. MoDOT project management teams should be flexible in implementing each design-build project. However, experience has shown that the more defined the internal MoDOT processes are for items such as change orders, potential disputes, and responses to the contractor on specific issues, the smoother the project will proceed.