You are on page 1of 10

Construction Research Congress 2016 361

Design-Build Mega Bridge Projects in New York and Best Practices in


Procurement
Raymond Moran, P.E., DBIA, MSCE, M.ASCE1; and Ibrahim Odeh, MBA, Ph.D.2
1
Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
Columbia Univ., 618 S.W. Mudd Bldg., 500 West 120th St., New York, NY 10027.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

E-mail: rmm141@columbia.edu
2
Lecturer in Discipline, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
Columbia Univ., 706C S.W. Mudd Bldg., 500 West 120th St., New York, NY 10027.
E-mail: odeh@columbia.edu

Abstract

Three of New Yorks public transportation agencies have embarked on the


construction of Design-Build Mega projects. The NYSDOT Kosciuszko Bridge, The
NYSTA New NY (Tappan Zee) Bridge and the PANYNJ Goethals Bridge are all
cable stayed bridge structures utilizing the Design-Build project delivery method.
Although these Mega Bridge projects are currently in various phases of construction,
the procurement methodologies have been reviewed, analyzed, compared, and
contrasted using a review of the RFP documents, selection criteria, and interview data
gathered from key project pursuit team and RFP development team members. The
initial findings are discussed in detail and will be utilized as they key areas of future
research in developing a RFP scoring criteria development model to maximize the
benefits of utilizing Design-Build project delivery and lead to further research in the
procurement practices of mega-bridge construction projects.

Keywords: Design-build procurement; Selection criteria; Transportation mega


projects; Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

What was once considered the most modern and extensive roadway network
in the world, the United States highways and bridges, are now in a state of disrepair.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) over two hundred
million trips are taken daily across deficient bridges in the nations 102 largest
metropolitan regions and in total, one in nine of the nations bridges is rated as
structurally deficient (ASCE 2013). In addition to the deteriorating condition of the
existing highways and bridges, it is clear that the highway system does not have the
capacity it needs to safely carry the growing volume of vehicles that utilize the
nations roadways and bridges with over forty-two percent of Americas major urban
highways remaining congested (ASCE 2013). Congestion alone costs the U.S.
economy an estimated $101 billion in wasted time and fuel annually. In 2013 the
American Society of Civil Engineers summarized its findings through the release of
its latest report card on the nations infrastructure and United States highways
although slightly improved from the findings last reported in 2009, it still indicates a
need for significant improvement. With an aging bridge inventory, a high number of

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 362

structurally deficient bridges open to traffic, and extensive congestion on the nations
highways, the country earned overall grades of C+ on its bridges, and D on roadways
(ASCE 2013).
Background
In an effort to more quickly reduce the number of deficient bridges and more
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

efficiently utilize available funds throughout the U.S., transportation officials have
turned to design build project delivery to help effect change. Design-Build (DB)
contracting is an integrated project delivery system in which the design builder is
contractually responsible for both design and construction (Songer and Molenaar,
1997). DB delivery has been used successfully in the private vertical construction
market in the United States for decades and the public vertical construction arena for
more than 20 years, but has only recently started gaining momentum on bridge
projects (past 10 to 15 years). Transportation Agencies in New York State have been
late entrants into the DB arena because legislation allowing public agencies to utilize
design build had not been in place until December 2011 through the historic New
York Investment Act. This enabled the Department of Transportation, Thruway
Authority, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Department of
Environmental Conservation, and the Bridge Authority to utilize design-build through
December 2014 on projects in excess of $1.2 million. The DB Authority was recently
extended for 2 years through 2016 and makes New York one of 44 states to have
legislation in place to utilize DB on public infrastructure projects in some capacity.
In the short period of time since its inception in 2011, two of New York
States major transportation agencies - the New York State Thruway Authority
(NYSTA) and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) - have
embarked on mega projects, over $500M each in Construction, utilizing DB to help
deliver the largest bridge projects in the history of their respective organizations, the
NYSTA New NY Bridge to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge and the NYSDOT
Replacement of the Kosciusko Bridge. The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, a bi-state agency responsible for building, operating, and maintaining critical
transportation and trade assets throughout the New York/New Jersey region is
responsible for the bridges and tunnels that cross between NY and NJ including the
Goethals Bridge which is currently being replaced under the first Public Private
Partnership (PPP) bridge replacement in the Agencys history. The new Goethals
Bridge will be the first new bridge for the agency since the George Washington
Bridge was built in 1931 and it will utilize DB for the design and construction of the
facility.
The three aforementioned major crossings in the NYC metropolitan area were
selected for case studies because they have a number of features in common that
make them excellent candidates for comparison including: All Mega Projects Valued
in excess of $500M each in construction; All utilize DB delivery; Similar Signature
Feature & Structure Type: Cable Stayed Main Spans Dual Span Configurations;
Similar Location, Labor pool, subcontracting pool; Extensive level of community
outreach required; Construction Starts within 2 years of each other; Long term 4 year
(or more) projects; and all located in environmentally sensitive areas.

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 363

LITERATURE REVIEW
With the average age of the nations bridges reaching over 42 years old
(ASCE 2013) and decades of just-in-time repairs completed to maintain the roads and
bridges in the country, state transportation agencies have been refining the way they
contract with industry to try to achieve best value for the money invested while also
expediting construction starts and reducing the overall costs of projects to realize
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

faster results. Numerous studies have concluded that the DB process can provide
both superior time and cost performance when compared to the more traditional
design-bid-build delivery method (Konchar and Sandivo, 1998; Warne, 2005, Hale et
al., 2009, Shreshta et al., 2012, Chen et al., 2015).
Researchers continue to study the benefits of DB project delivery in the
building sector including Hale (2009) and Gransberg (2007), however, to date
relatively few studies have been conducted on the transportation projects as the
quantity of completed DB projects in any one transportation type or cost category are
still fairly limited. However, with the recent increase in use of DB procurement in the
transportation sector recent research has validated the effectiveness of Design Build
in reducing overall project duration and construction time (Shrestha et al., 2012 and
Chen et al., 2015).
In public sector transportation projects, the DB contractor is generally selected
though either a one step or two-step procurement process as defined by Napier and
Freiburg (1990). DB selection particularly on transportation mega projects still
utilize a two-step procurement that has evolved and been refined from that described
by Napier (1990) and Molenaar (1999). Molenaar (2001) indicated that two-step
procurement can lead to selection of the more qualified contractors and the resulting
schedule and price assurance that DB owners seek in selecting DB. Opfer et al.
(2002) identified the selection criteria and the assigned weightings at the Request for
Qualification stage was the most critical step in success of design-build projects
because it is at the RFQ stage that respective bidders will be focused on the criteria. A
key component of Opfers commentary on public sector design build procurement is
that definition of the categories and techniques for scoring should be clear from the
onset.
The development of the RFP and its selection criteria categories (Molenaar
and Gransberg, 2001), sets the table for the selected Design-Build (DB) project team
to successfully meet the Owners goals and expectations for a successful project.
Through the development of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and subsequent
Request for Proposal (RFP) that states the owners requirements through clearly
assigned evaluation criteria and weighting that reflects the expectation of the Owner
and fulfillment of their needs, the owner can be placed in the best position possible to
obtain responsive proposals and in turn select a team that is well qualified with an
understanding of the project owners needs and is positioned for success. Lpez del
Puerto et al. (2008) also concluded that owners carefully analyze their design-build
proposal evaluation plans and ensure that the actual weighting given to evaluation
criteria match the demands of the project and the owners perceptions of importance.

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 364

Current Industry Best Practices


The Design Build Institute of America (DBIA), the only organization that
defines, teaches and promotes best practice in DB (DBIA 2014), released an updated
resource entitled, Design-Build Done Right: Best Design-Build Practices in which
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DBIA has identified design-build best practices and implementation techniques that
can directly impact project performance (DBIA 2104). Although this guide was not
written specifically for the Transportation Industry, the guide was developed based on
research, case studies, and extensive industry input from owners and practitioners of
design-build projects. The publication provides guidance in best practices in the
procurement phase when using competitive design-build procurement where both
technical and cost factors are evaluated. The three best practices identified were:

Establish clear evaluation and selection processes


Ensure that the process is fair, open and transparent
Value both technical concepts and price in the selection process
These suggested best practices align with recommendation made by Napier (1990),
Molenaar 2001, Opfer (2002), Lpez del Puerto (2008) and others.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The primary goal of the on-going study is to develop a decision making model
for RFP selection criteria that identifies the main categories for proposal evaluation
and provide suggested weighting/scoring criteria to set clear evaluation percentages
for the proposers, thus allowing the responses to the RFQs/RFPs to be developed to
best address the owners requirements. Previous research conducted by others has
included reviews of hundred of RFPs in building construction and transportation
projects of smaller scale, typically less than $500M per project. Research conducted
in this study involves identification of recently awarded mega (greater than $500M in
construction cost) design build transportation projects.
To successfully achieve the study objectives, researchers have performed a
comprehensive literature review, reviewed current industry best practices in DB
procurement, completed a detailed case study of three Transportation DB Mega
project procurements in the NYC Metro area, thoroughly analyzed the RFQ and RFP
selection criteria, and initiated interviews with key industry personnel involved in the
selection process both from selected and shortlisted but not selected teams. Interviews
have been completed to include a broad array of perspectives inclusive of the lead
design firms, prime contractors, DB quality assurance firms, and members of the
Owners RFP development team. Findings from project case studies and interviews
will be validated through broader industry participation surveys, and the
recommendations will be used to develop a model to assist Owners in providing
scoring criteria (see Figure 1) that clearly identify the projects need and provides
clear scoring criteria and values that the responders to RFQs and RFPs seek.

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 365
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The stu
udy has justt completed
d the interviiew stage aand the reseearchers are
dev
veloping the industry wide
w survey for
f distributtion. At thiis stage of rresearch we
hav
ve garnered very useful feedback th
hat correlatees with reseaarchers inittial findings
upo
on review off the RFP/RF
FQ documennts which willl be discusssed in furtherr detail.
Rev
view of the RFQ
R and RFP
R Selectio
on and Scoriing Criteriaa
Thee New NY (T
Tappan Zee) Bridge
In Noveember of 201 w jointly issued by the NYSDOT aand NYSTA
11, a RFQ was
seeking qualifieed firms to perform
p the complete ddesign and construction of the New
ppan Zee Hu
Tap udson River Crossing clo ose to the exxisting Tapppan Zee Briddge, and the
dem
molition of th
he existing bridge
b underr a two-step bbest value prrocurement process.
The critteria utilizedd in the RFQ to develoop a shortlisst of qualified firms to
receeive an RFP P were in equ ual or descending order of weight: E Experience oof the firms
and
d past perforrmance; Projject Understtanding; Orgganization aand Key Personnel; and
Baccklog/Capab bility. In Feb
bruary 2012, a shortlist oof 4 consortiiums was annnounced to
mpete in the RFP phase and receiveed Instructioons to Proposers. In Marrch of 2012
com
the RFP was issued to the 4 shortlisted d firms. Shouuld the submmittals meet all pass/fail
requirements, thet selection n criteria forr this best vvalue selectiion was thaat price was
equ
ual to techniical evaluatiion and thatt the major categories ffor technicall evaluation
inclluded: Desig gn and Consstruction Sollution; Manaagement Appproach; Keyy Personnel;
Envvironmental Compliancce; and Pub blic Outreacch and Cooordination. Of the 5
techhnical categgories, the fiirst three weere of equall weight annd were weigghted more
heaavily the finaal two catego
ories which were
w of equaal weight to each other.
Thee New Kosciuszko Bridg
ge (K-Bridge))
In Januaary 2013, an
n RFQ was issued by thee NYSDOT seeking quaalified firms
to perform
p the complete design
d and coonstruction of the New K-Bridge. The project
involves the coonstruction of 1-mile long eastbound bbridge struccture, which
o a new 1.1
will be built parallel
p to and on the eastbound side of thee existing bbridge with
suff
fficient widthh to carry all
a traffic un
ntil Phase 2 (constructioon of a secoond parallel

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 366

span) of the project is complete. The Project will also include the demolition of the
existing Kosciuszko Bridge. NYSDOT elected to utilize a two-step best value
procurement process. The criteria evaluated in the RFQ in equal importance were:
Organization and Key Personnel; Experience of the Firms; Project Understanding;
and Past Performance. In February 2013, six teams submitted a response to the RFQ
and in May of 2013 four teams were shortlisted to compete in the RFP phase and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

received Instructions to Proposers. Upon meeting all pass/fail requirements, the


selection criteria for this best value selection was that price was equal to technical
evaluation and that the major categories for technical evaluation included: Technical
Solutions; Management Approach; Key Personnel; Schedule and Project Support
(Public Outreach Involvement Plan). Of the 5 technical categories, the first two were
of equal weight and were weighted more heavily than the next two which were also
of equal weight but weighted more heavily than the 5th factor. Further subcategories
of evaluation were provided within the first 4 categories. Within the Key Personnel
category 20 personnel were identified with 4 levels of weight distribution, each with 5
key personnel receiving more importance than the next group of 5 and so on.
The New Goethals Bridge Procurement
The procurement process used for this Public Private Partnership (PPP) was a
two step process which included an RFQ in October 2010 and an RFP distributed to a
shortlist of firms in April 2012. This procurement was structured differently that the
other two as it was a PPP that required not only design build construction but also a
35 year maintenance period and project financing responsibilities. The RFQ was a far
more detailed document in comparison to the RFQ on the New NY Bridge and the K-
Bridge and required a response to detailed technical evaluation criteria (similar to
what was included in the Step 2 RFP for the New NY Bridge and the K-Bridge
procurements). The RFP in turn provided pass/fail technical qualifications criteria
and proposed award to the lowest adjusted evaluation price for a proposal calculated
as a function of various cost. For the purpose of this study the RFQ scoring criteria
for the design build component is the most applicable for comparison.
The scored selection criteria in the RFQ similarly indicated financial
qualifications and capacity as equal to technical factors. Financial capacity was
broken down into three criteria with clear weights assigned, however two of the
categories, Equity members long-term commitment and ability to successfully
achieve financial close (30%), and financial capability of the responding team
members (12.5%) had multiple subcategories, five and two respectively with no
further break down of scoring weight. The technical factors included 4 major
evaluations criteria with clear weights assigned to them, however 3 of the 4 criteria
had multiple sub-criteria without any further breakdown, Experience of the
responding tem firms (30%), experience of key personnel (10%), and Statement of
technical approach (5%).
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
After thorough review and analysis of the RFQ/RFPs, the selection criteria,
and data gathered through the interview process we have identified the following

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 367

trends and areas for future research. The majority of those interviewed have been
satisfied that the RFQ and RFP documents, the selection process and the overall
procurements have been fair and in general alignment with industry expectations.
However, our research findings also align with comments received in the interview
process from stakeholders including contractors and engineers on both selected and
non-selected teams. The most frequent comments include:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

x More detailed/clear scoring criteria weighting is needed in technical section


x It is unclear if any technical innovation or superior technical qualifications can
outweigh a lower cost and to what extent
x Suggestions to integrate less typical criteria into the selection process that can
fuel innovation in the design build procurement process (sustainable
infrastructure, long term economic development concepts)
It is clear that when large public investment is required, all relevant
information must be provided so that owners can make an educated decision founded
on the information provided to best protect the public investment in these projects.
However, with the short periods of time and quantity of information that must be
provided, respondents appear to desire a clear and exact breakdown of the scoring
criteria so that team resources and energies can be properly devoted to address the
RFQ/RFP criteria. When evaluation criteria is left somewhat open to interpretation
the true power of design build may not be utilized and rather it may be stifled to a low
bid situation similar to the selection process of Design-Bid Build. When using
numerical values based on the language contained within the RFQs/RFPs there can be
large swings in the perceived weight of each scored evaluation criteria.
Example 1
RFP language such as The technical evaluation factors denoted A, B and C in
the above list are of equal importance to each other, and are of more importance than
factors D and E. Factors D and E are of equal importance. The 5 technical factors
expected to be equal to 50% of the evaluation based on the Proposal Price will be
approximately equal in importance to the combined overall technical ratings. Within
the 50% allocated for the technical weight the scoring for Items A through E can be
interpreted in many ways as indicated in Table 1.

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 368

Based on
o the languaage in the RFFP the interppretation of the value off each of the
tech
hnical categ
gories could swing fromm nearly equaal for the 5 technical crriteria to an
app
proximate 166:1 ratio of im
mportance between
b A, BB, C and D, E E.
Exa
ample 2
RFP Laanguage inclludes Of th he 5 technicaal categoriess, the first tw
wo were off
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

equ
ual weight an nd were weiighted moree heavily thaan the next ttwo which w were also off
equ
ual weight bu ut weighted more heavily than the 5 th factor. The 5 technnical factors
are expected to o be equal to 50% of the evaluation aas it was notted that Prooposal Price
and
d the Quality y Evaluation
n being of eq qual importaance to eachh other. Thhis language
leadds to many more
m potenttial variation
ns as it is noow a three tiiered weightting system.
Inteerpretation of
o the value of each of the technicaal categories could varyy widely as
sho
own in Tablee 2, with cattegories 1 an nd 2 rangingg from nearr 25% each tto just over
10%%, Categoriees 3 and 4 raanging from approximateely 12% to nnearly 0% annd category
5 ranging
r from
m nearly 10 0% to nearlly 0%, all w with various ratios of importance
betwween each ofo the categories in the 3 ties of scoriing criteria.

a provided without intrroducing thee additional variation in


Examplles 1 and 2 are
weiights and sco oring introduuced in somee subcategorries of each scoring cateegory which
ind
duce even morem uncertaainly in the importance and weightting of varioous scoring
critteria. It is clear
c that more
m exact scoring critteria wouldd assist resppondents in
pro
operly addresssing the neeeds of the project
p assumming the scooring criteriaa/weighting
trully reflect thee Owners reequirementss and needs on the projeect. It wouldd also allow
dessign build teeams to betteer assign their resourcees to respondd to the cateegories that
carrry more valu ue in an effort to maximiize scoring.

LIM
MITATION
NS
This emmpirical stud
dy is ongoinng and the reesults presennted are preeliminary in
natuure based on
o a small sample sizee. The authhors will coontinue to ggather data,
con
nduct additio onal industrry wide ressearch to vaalidate findiings, and thhen further
dev
velop and ex xpand the fin
ndings to include up-to-ddate data andd analysis. T
The findings
presented in thhis paper exaamine the prrocurement process andd scoring criiteria across
threee design-build transpo ortation mega projects and identiify weaknessses in the
sco
oring criteria based on an
nalysis of thee RFPs, andd early intervview data gatthered from

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 369

dessign-build professionals
p s representting Ownerrs, Designeers, and C Construction
Con ntractors invvolved in thee response annd evaluation process foor the three ddesign build
tran
nsportation mega
m projeccts. The maajor finding revealed thrrough early analysis off
dataa is that scorring criteria was not madde as clear a s possible.

CO
ONCLUSIONS AND NE
EXT STEPS
S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This pap per summarrizes one asp pect of curreent investigaative researchh aiming to
obsserve, dissecct, and studyy the processs of designn-build transsportation m mega project
pro
ocurement prractices. Claarity and deefinition in scoring andd evaluationn criteria is
neeeded through hout the sellection proccess so that proposers ccan dedicate resources
neeeded to addreess the mostt critical item
ms presentedd by the ownner and propoose features
most highly. This research will lead
within their dessign build prroposals thatt will score m
to development
d t of a compuuterized scorring criteria ttool which ccan provide a suggested
RFP P scoring model
m to alllow better alignment bbetween prooject expectations and
pro
oposal develo opment by th he DB teamss (Figure 2).

Through h the use of semi-structu ured intervieews, review of RFP doccuments and
longitudinal observations, wew were ablee to preliminnarily identiffy major missalignments
betwween the dettailed evaluaation criteriaa presented aand the range of weightss and values
those criteria could
c have based
b on vag gue languagge in the RF FQ/RFP. Wee extend the
existing literatu
ure on the immplications of differencces between owner expeectation and
RFPP responden nt and subseqquent misaliignments thaat can materrialize when developing
a reesponse to the RFP. All A parties in n the industrry can beneefit from thiis study by
und
derstanding how better alignment and a definitioon in selection criteria aand scoring
can
n increase thhe potential for
f receiving g responses to the RFP that are respponsive and
makke the best use
u of the ad dvantages th hat design-buuild project procuremennt can offer.
Thrroughout thee next stagess of this reseearch we aim m to further validate these findings,
and
d provide a decision
d makking model forf suggeste d selection ccriteria weigghting using
sco
oring method dologies thaat can guidee an owner towards deeveloping ann RFP that
add
dresses the basic
b elemennts, clearly identifies
i thee weight andd requiremeents of each
sco
oring criteriaa, provides a formula forr best value analysis to clarify the rrelationship
betwween price and
a technicaal factors, an nd better aliggns industryy response w
with owners
requirements so o that design
n-build can beb utilized too its full beneefit.

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016


Construction Research Congress 2016 370

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writers would like to gratefully recognize the public officials, design
professionals and construction contractors who took the time during the peak of
construction to provide insight to their projects and procurement process.
REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Chen, Q., Jin, Z., Xia, B., Peng, W. and Skitmore, M. (2015). Time and Cost
Performance of Design-Build Projects Journal of Construction Engineering
Management. 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001056 1-7
Grasnberg, D.D., and Barton, R.F. (2007) Analysis of Federal Design-Build Request
for Proposal Evaluation Criteria. J. Manage. Eng., 23(2) 105-111
Hale, D. R., Shrestha, P. P., Gibson, G. E., and Migliaccio, G. C. (2009). Empirical
comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project delivery methods. J.
Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(7), 579 587.
Konchar, M., and Sanvido, V. (1998). Comparison of U.S. project delivery systems.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(6), 435 444.
Lopez del Puerto, C., Gransberg, D.D., and Shane, J.S. (2008), Comparative
Analysis of Owner Goals for Design/Build Projects. J. Mgmt in Eng., (24) 32-39
Molenaar, K. R., Songer, A. D., and Barash, M. (1999). Public-sector design/build
evolution and performance. J. Manage. Eng., 15(2), 54 - 62.
Molenaar, K. R., and Gransberg, D. D. (2001). Design-build selection for small
highway projects. J. Manage. Eng., 17(4), 214 223.
Opfer, N., Son, J., and Korman, T. (2002). Public Sector Design-Build Selection
Criteria, AACE International Transactions. PM04, 1-7
Shrestha, P. P., O Connor, J. T., and Gibson, G. E., Jr. (2012). Performance
Comparison of Large Design-Build and Design-Build Highway Projects. J.
Constr.Eng.Manage., 138(1) 1-13.
Shrestha, P. P., Migliaccio, G. C., O Connor, J. T., and Gibson, G. E., Jr. (2007).
Benchmarking of large design-build highway projects: One-to-one comparison and
comparison with DBB projects. Transportation Research Record 1994,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 17 25
Songer, A. D., and Molenaar, K. R. (1997). Project characteristics for successful
public-sector design-build. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123(1),34 40.
Warne, T. R. (2005). Design build contracting for highway projects: A performance
assessment, Tom Warne and Associates, South Jordan, UT.

ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

You might also like