Experiences of Two Colorado Transportation Agencies with

Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg

1

Experiences of Two Colorado Transportation Agencies with their First CMGC Projects By: Mehmet E. Ozbek1, PhD, Assistant Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator Organization: Colorado State University, Department of Construction Management Address: Guggenheim Hall, Campus Delivery-1584, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1584 Phone: (970) 491-4101, Fax: (970) 491-2473, E-mail: [email protected] Carla Lopez del Puerto, PhD, Assistant Professor Organization: Colorado State University, Department of Construction Management Address: Guggenheim Hall, Campus Delivery-1584, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1584 Phone: (970) 491-7960, Fax: (970) 491-2473, E-mail: [email protected] Douglas D. Gransberg, PhD, Professor and Donald and Sharon Greenwood Chair of Construction Engineering Organization: Iowa State University, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering Address: 494 Town Engineering Building, Ames, Iowa 50011-3232 Phone: (515) 294-4148, E-mail: [email protected] Number of Words in Text: 5842 Number of Tables and Figures in the Paper: 2 Total Word Equivalent: 6342 Date of Submission: 7/12/2012

1

Corresponding Author

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2

EXPERIENCES OF TWO COLORADO TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES WITH THEIR FIRST CMGC PROJECTS By Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg ABSTRACT Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) project delivery system is beginning to be recognized as an effective way of accelerating the delivery of transportation projects and gaining popularity among transportation agencies. This research documents the experiences of two transportation agencies in Colorado and provides information with respect to the practices utilized by each agency in implementing the CMGC project delivery system for the first time. The first project is the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel Motor Control Cabinets Replacement project whose agency owner is the Colorado Department of Transportation. The second project is West Rail Line project whose agency owner is the Regional Transportation District. To provide findings that can benefit transportation agencies, researchers used multiple sources of information including structured in-depth interviews, questionnaires completed by key individuals working in the investigated projects, and published documents about the investigated projects. The findings provide a broad perspective on the different practices in implementing this project delivery system; and are presented under eight different areas: (i) rationale for choosing the particular project to utilize the CMGC project delivery system, (ii) procurement phase, (iii) preparation of the agency for the CMGC project, (iv) design contract for the CMGC project, (v) guaranteed maximum price and contingency, (vi) subcontracts, (vii) preconstruction services, and (viii) lessons learned. It was concluded that while both owners are Colorado transportation agencies, they utilized significantly different practices in implementing the CMGC project delivery, which eventually resulted in differences in opinion with respect to the potential of this system to be used in subsequent projects.



Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

3

INTRODUCTION Implementing a new project delivery system increases a project’s complexity by changing routine agency business practices (1). It can be either a traumatic experience or a challenging but rewarding experience as an agency adds a new tool to its procurement toolbox. This research documents the experiences of two transportation agencies in Colorado and provides information with respect to the practices utilized by each agency in implementing the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) project delivery system for the first time. It is hoped that other transportation agencies will be able to benefit from the findings of this research. CMGC is a project delivery system which is based on integrating the team during the planning, design, and construction phases. The team consists of the owner; the designer, and the CMGC. The CMGC is added to the team very early, i.e., before the design phase begins, and acts as an agent of the owner and collaborates with the designer during all phases of the design development to provide input on items such as design, constructability reviews, cost engineering reviews, value engineering, material selection, and contract package development. Once the design is sufficiently complete, CMGC is asked to provide a proposal to build the project with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). If the final proposal (the process may involve negotiations and updated proposals) is accepted, then CMGC becomes the general contractor starting with the construction phase (2). If the agreement cannot be reached then the owner may choose to have the design fully completed and procure the general contractor using competitive bidding, in effect converting the project delivery system to design-bid-build (3). This project delivery system results in two contracts between the owner and the CMGC. The first is for the preconstruction services that the CMGC provides during the design phase and the second contract is for the actual construction services. As in traditional project delivery, the owner has a separate contract with the designer or uses its in-house designer (2). Since the launching of Special Experimental Project Number 14 (SEP-14), transportation agencies across the nation have been experimenting with different project delivery systems and innovative contracting practices (4). Specifically, a few transportation agencies have been active in using CMGC project delivery system, including the Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island and Utah departments of transportation and the Arizona counties of Maricopa, Pima, Pinal as well as the Arizona cities of Flagstaff, Glendale, Phoenix, and Tempe (2). PURPOSE AND SCOPE CMGC project delivery system has been used in the building industry for a long time. However, even though there are a few state and local transportation agencies which have used this system as listed above, its use has traditionally been relatively limited in transportation projects (2). Recently, as a result of the Federal Highway Administration’s Every Day Counts initiative (5), CMGC is beginning to be recognized as an effective way of accelerating the delivery of transportation projects and gaining popularity among transportation agencies (6). The state and local transportation agencies in Colorado have been following this trend, with CMGC project delivery system started to be utilized very recently in two major transportation agencies, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver. Documenting these two transportation agencies’ experiences with CMGC project delivery system can provide useful information not only for other transportation agencies in Colorado but also for transportation agencies across the nation that are considering implementing this project delivery system.



Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

4

Within this context, the purpose of this research is to perform an investigation of these two very recent projects undertaken in Colorado to provide findings that can benefit other transportation agencies. The first project is the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel (EJMT) Motor Control Cabinets (MCC) Replacement project whose agency owner is CDOT. The second project is West Rail Line project whose agency owner is RTD. It is important to note that both of these projects were the first CMGC project for their respective agencies. More information about these projects is provided in the next section. In achieving its purpose, this research will compare the practices utilized by each agency in implementing the CMGC project delivery system. As will be revealed later in this paper, CDOT and RTD have very different such practices; and thus we believe that, by highlighting the major differences, this paper provides a broad perspective on the different practices in implementing this project delivery system. BACKGROUND ON THE TWO PROJECTS The EJMT MCC Replacement project is located on I-70, at milepost 213.65, in Summit County, inside the EJMT in the electrical control areas for the south bore. The project consists of replacing 2400 medium volt MCC. MCC serve the supply and exhaust ventilation fans inside the tunnel. The south bore ventilation system consists of six supply fans and six exhaust fans that are housed in East and West ventilation equipment rooms located at each end of the portal. There are four 2400 medium volt MCC, two in each of the electrical equipment rooms (7). The cost of the project is $3,308,857. The project was awarded in November 2010 and was completed in December 2011 (8). The West Rail Line project originates at Denver Union Station and extends for 12.1 miles ending at the Jefferson County Government Center (9). The cost of the project is $709.8 million. The project was awarded in April 2008 and will be completed in December 2012. As stated in the West Rail Line Fact Sheet (2012), the project consists of the following components (10):  13 Light Rail Transit or vehicular bridge structures.  2 light rail tunnels.  4 pedestrian structures.  12 stations with varying amenities including three parking structures and three surface parking lots.  115 retaining walls and more than 10,000 feet of noise wall.  20 at-grade crossings.  Rebuilding of local streets and roadways adjacent to the trackway.  Significant replacement, relocation, adjustment and protection of existing public and private utilities and underground storm drainage and surface drainage re-grading.  Traction power/distribution, train control and communication systems.  9 miles of double-tracked and 3 miles of single-tracked light rail. METHODOLOGY To be able to achieve the purpose of this study, the qualitative research methodology was used. Creswell (2009) suggests that in qualitative research, different data collection procedures can be used. This research utilized two of those procedures: (i) review of public documents such as the request for proposals (RFPs), scope of work documents, fact sheets and (ii) use of questionnaires and interviews (11). In other words, researchers used multiple sources of information including




5

structured in-depth interviews, questionnaires completed by key individuals working in the investigated projects, and published documents about the investigated projects. The primary information source for this research was structured in-depth interviews of individuals representing the owners for both projects. A detailed 22-page long questionnaire, which included both open-ended questions and questions that required the selection of one or multiple options, was developed. The questionnaire was made available to the interviewees two weeks before the interview. The face-to-face interviews, for the most part, followed the same script as the questionnaire; however interviewees were also allowed to digress as desired, which provided the researchers with valuable information that was not originally contemplated. Sufficient time was given per the U.S. Government Accountability Office method (12) to ensure that the interviewee understands each question and that the data collector clearly understands the responses to the questions. For the EJMT MCC Replacement project the researchers interviewed Mr. Ben Acimovic, P.E. and Mr. Nabil Haddad, P.E. Mr. Acimovic works for CDOT as a Project Manager for Region 1 and was the project manager for the EJMT MCC Replacement project. Mr. Nabil Haddad, P.E. was also heavily involved in the EJMT MCC Replacement project as the Innovative Contracting Program Manager for CDOT. For the West Rail Line project the authors interviewed Mr. Del Walker, PE. who is the Deputy Assistant General Manager for Capital Programs at RDT. FINDINGS The findings presented in this section are grouped under the following eight areas: (i) rationale for choosing the particular project to utilize the CMGC project delivery system, (ii) procurement phase, (iii) preparation of the agency for the CMGC project, (iv) design contract for the CMGC project, (v) guaranteed maximum price and contingency, (vi) subcontracts, (vii) preconstruction services, and (viii) lessons learned. As mentioned earlier, each section will present and compare the approaches of both agencies to issues relevant to the concept discussed in that section. Rationale for Choosing the Particular Project to Utilize the CMGC Project Delivery System Both CDOT and RTD decided to pilot the use of CMGC upon learning about other agencies’ positive experiences with that project delivery system through publications, conferences, roundtable discussions, and personal communications. However, their rationales for choosing the particular project to pilot the use of CMGC project delivery system for were significantly different. In CDOT’s case, the agency, based on the input from its Innovative Contracting Program, decided to pilot CMGC in a project which truly merited the use of such project delivery system. When it was determined that the MCC in the south bore of EJMY were nearing the end of their useful lives, CDOT evaluated the replacement options and got a conceptual design completed. Following this, CDOT evaluated the project delivery systems that could potentially be used for this project. At the time of this evaluation, CDOT had just completed the replacement of the 480 volt MCC in the north bore of EJMT using design-bid-build and realized that such project delivery system did not provide the opportunity for contractor involvement during design, which was determined to be critical for that specialty project with a lot of unknown risks. When compared to design-bid-build, the CMGC project delivery system offered CDOT more contractor involvement in the design. After comparing the pros and cons of different delivery



Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

6

systems, CDOT decided to use CMGC for this project (7). CMGC was selected for this project not only to promote contractor input during design but also to facilitate the need for contractor ordered long lead procurement items. The desire to accelerate schedule and reduce costs over traditional project delivery systems were two other reasons. The main driving factor for selecting CMGC for this project, though, was the uniqueness of the project that resulted in unknown risks. CDOT believes that involving the contractor starting on the first day helps the contractor identify and mitigate those risks during preconstruction and also price and negotiate those with the owner accordingly. It is important to note that to determine the most appropriate delivery system for each of its projects, CDOT uses a sophisticated project delivery selection matrix (13) and performs a half-day long workshop session with the attendance of the project manager, a FHWA representative, and representatives from specialty units (such as utilities, right of way, hydraulics) to get their inputs to complete that matrix. In contrast to CDOT which decided to pilot the CMGC in the EJMT MCC Replacement project after performing a thorough evaluation of the needs of that project, RTD’s approach to piloting the use of CMGC was less sophisticated. RTD simply decided that CMGC would be piloted in a multi-million dollar project. The West Rail Line was the first project that was scheduled to be designed and constructed after the decision to pilot the use of CMGC was made, therefore CMGC was chosen for this project. Procurement Phase To procure the CMGC, both agencies used a direct point scoring method that assigned weights to both quality related items and price. However, CDOT completed the procurement in two steps; whereas RTD used a one-step procurement approach. In CDOT’s procurement approach for the EJMT MCC Replacement project, Step 1 was the Statement of Interest (SOI)/Proposal Submittal which was used to develop a short list of 3 proposers. Step 2 included oral interviews and the cost proposal (14). Table 1 shows the evaluation criteria as published in RFP for this project. TABLE 1 Evaluation Criteria, EJMT MCC Replacement Project RFP (14) Evaluation Criteria Points Step 1: Statement of Interest (SOI)/Proposal Submittal Project management team/capability of the contractor 10 Project approach 20 Project innovations 10 CMGC design process 20 Step 2: Oral Interview and the Cost Proposal Oral interviews 20 Cost Proposal 20 Only those proposers who were short-listed were required to go through Step 2 and thus submit a cost proposal. The cost proposal included the fee for preconstruction and construction services, general conditions for on-site CMGC staff during construction, and other reimbursable general conditions such as on-site materials, equipment, and facilities to support the work of the CMGC staff and the construction subcontractors. In step 2, the short-listed proposers were asked to deliver a 30-minute long presentation summarizing their statement of interest which was



Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

7

followed by a question and answer session focusing on the technical, administrative, and cost issues led by the CDOT selection panel (14). There were no protests on this project. In response to the Colorado Contractors Association’s request, CDOT decided to allow each interested contractor to participate in the interview process in future projects. CDOT will still short list the top three contractors; however, will provide each proposer an opportunity to participate in the interview process if they desire to do so. Even though it is very unlikely, a contractor that is not in the shortlist may end up winning the project due to its performance during the interview process; however, the main intent of allowing interested contractors to participate is to help each contractor gain experience in the interview process and thus increase its competitiveness in future CMGC projects. For the West Rail Line project, RTD considered quality factors and price both of which were equally weighed, each worth 50% of the total rating. Table 2 shows the quality factors and associated points as published in the RFP for this project. TABLE 2 Quality Factors, West Rail Line Project RFP (15) Quality Factors Experience of the Proposer and Project Team Proposer/team’s experience and specific roles Proposed team composition Financial capacity Project Approach/Management, Contracting, Community Impacts, Safety and Quality Plans Within budget On-time completion Contracting plan Compliance with the DBE and Workforce Programs Community Impacts plan Safety experience and plan Construction Quality Management Plan

Points 20 20 10 5 5 25 15 * * *

* To be selected, a proposer must have an acceptable rating in these subfactors. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

The price proposal included a total price for the pre-construction services to be performed and a fixed fee for construction services. The lowest proposed price was assigned a price rating of 50%, all other price proposals were prorated. Quality and price were combined to determine the best value proposal (15). Based on the proposals, three proposers were short-listed and an interview process was then used to select the successful proposer. In the interview, the proposers gave a formal presentation that included (i) corporate qualification and past projects, (ii) qualification and experience for key personnel, (iii) project-specific issues, and (iv) preconstruction services components. During the interview, the proposers were asked to respond to a list of questions specific to the proposal and also some other standard questions. There were no protests on this project either. In addition to having some differences in the CMGC selection criteria and points/weights, the two agencies had a major difference in opinion when they were asked whether the designer or the CMGC should be procured first. In CDOT’s case, both the designer




8

and CMGC were brought to the project at the same time. Particular attention was paid to make this happen to prevent a situation in which the party (i.e., designer or CMGC) that is selected earlier than the other one may claim “ownership” of the project and avoid considering the input of the other one because that party joined the project late. On the other hand, in RTD’s case, RTD hired the designer before hiring the CMGC. Furthermore, it was indicated that, even though it was not the case for the West Rail Line project, it would be helpful if the designer assists in the CMGC selection process. The designer would be involved in evaluating the CMGC qualifications, developing the short list, and voting in the selection panel. Preparation of the Agency for the CMGC Project In the case of the EJMT MCC Replacement project, project participants from CDOT did not receive any specific formal training on the CMGC concept. Nevertheless, the project manager did a lot of research to educate himself on the topic of CMGC and potential pitfalls. This research mainly consisted of contacting other project managers who had experiences in this project delivery system in other states. It is envisioned that as CDOT uses CMGC in more projects, a formal training program will be put in place to educate the project managers as well as the upper management, and perhaps the contractors on the topic. For the West Rail Line project, there was no specific training or certification program for RTD project participants on the CMGC concept. Additionally, and in contrast to CDOT, there was not as much individual research or education effort undertaken by the project participants either. Nevertheless, due to getting federal funding for the project, RTD performed a very thorough risk assessment in preparation for the project. Design Contract for the CMGC Project In the case of the EJMT MCC Replacement project, the design contract was modified significantly from the standard design contracts used for design-bid-build projects to be able to accommodate the unique aspects of CMGC delivery system. The specific modifications included the following:  Design packages to be reviewed by CMGC.  Design milestones to facilitate preconstruction services package.  Requirements to incorporate/respond to CMGC review comments.  Budget review points.  Requirement to notify CMGC of significant design changes.  Value engineering with CMGC.  Material availability/selection decisions.  Construction means & methods decisions.  Coordination with 3rd party stakeholders. On the other hand, RTD did not modify the design contract to include CMGC specific clauses. In hindsight, including CMGC specific clauses would have increased effectiveness of the project delivery and would have given the CMGC the availability to provide cost-saving solutions and innovative ideas. Due to the language in the design contract, the designer was not required to accept the CMGC suggestions. This became particularly problematic when the CMGC proposed a wall solution that would have been more cost effective but the designer refused to consider it.




9

GMP and Contingency For the EJMT MCC Replacement project, the GMP was negotiated with the CMGC after 100% final design. CDOT would like to change this to 90% design in future projects as it is the standard practice in other states. Interviewees stated that had a GMP agreeable to both parties not been established, CDOT would bid out the project and bar the CMGC to bid on the project as that CMGC would have an unfair advantage. It was also stated that that the whole point of CMGC is to be able to establish a good relationship with the contractor starting on day one in the preconstruction phase and the ultimate intent is to enter into an agreement for the construction phase; and that the owners should be wary of those contractors who are not willing to enter into an agreement as their purpose can be to gain an unfair advantage (because they are intimately familiar with the project) when competing in a bid environment. In the case of the West Rail Line project, the GMP was negotiated with the CMGC before 100% final design. It was stated that had a GMP agreeable to both parties not been established, RTD would bid out the project and allow the CMGC to bid on the project. For CDOT’s project, a single project contingency was used; and even though the contract did not contain a “shared savings below the GMP” incentive, the unused portion of the contingency was shared equally between CDOT and the CMGC. For RTD’s project, the contract contained a shared savings incentive below the GMP (60% contractor, 40% owner). It also included separate owner and CMGC contingencies and a management reserve in addition to contingencies. Subcontracts In CDOT’s case, the CMGC was required to self-perform at least 30% of the work and given that there was not any limit on the maximum percentage that can be self-performed, CMGC ended up self-performing 80% of the work. Furthermore, while CMGC was given the opportunity to get bids from multiple subcontractors, CDOT eventually needed to agree on which subcontractors were to be used based on best value or low bid. In RTD’s case, the CMGC was required to selfperform at least 60% of the work but no more than 75% of the work. RTD reviewed and approved the process of the CMGC’s subcontracting but was not involved with the approval/disapproval of subcontractors (15). Preconstruction Services The RFP for the EJMT MCC Replacement project was very specific with respect to the services that the CMGC needed to perform during preconstruction. The following list, as directly extracted from the RFP, provides a high level overview of such services that CMGC was expected to perform, in working together with the designer and CDOT (7):  Identify and mitigate risks.  Continually update the project estimate.  Participate in up to three formal reviews of the design at designated design milestones.  Participate in risk analysis workshops at agreed-upon milestones.  Provide up to three progressively refined estimates at designated design milestones.  Continually provide informal input on constructability, value engineering, and cost as requested.  Provide open-book examination of cost model by CDOT, the program manager, and the designer.  Prepare a GMP proposal to CDOT with appropriate backup documentation.



Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

10

The scope of the preconstruction services that were provided in the West Rail Line project was extensive. The preconstruction services included the following items as directly extracted from the RFP (15):  Consult with, advise, assist and provide recommendations to Owner and design team on Civil and Systems elements as requested by RTD.  Provide full-time services (40 hours/week) of the proposed Project Manager beginning with “Notice to Proceed” for a duration of 18 months.  Provide, and submit a written report of constructability and value engineering recommendations based on the 65% Civil and Systems final design drawings.  Submit a preliminary and final “Conduct of Construction” plan to RTD.  Submit a detailed schedule and work plan.  Submit a report identifying materials that may be cost-effectively recycled during construction.  Perform a QA review of 65% and 90% final design and construction drawings and specifications.  Work with RTD to finalize and submit a subcontracting plan that creates DBE opportunities and participation by leveling the playing field.  In a letter to RTD, identify any long lead items that should be procured prior to completion of 100% final design so that the milestone schedule is met.  Work with RTD to finalize and submit a contracting plan for accomplishment of all construction including systems work.  Prepare and submit a detailed, baseline, cost-loaded, CPM schedule.  Attend public meetings, as requested by RTD, to assist in resolution of any project related issues.  Prepare and submit to RTD construction cost estimates at the 50% design level (or current level upon CMGC NTP), the 65% and 90% final design and construction documents.  Prepare and submit a safety plan.  Prepare and submit a Construction Quality Management Plan.  Prepare and submit a plan addressing how to handle unanticipated hazardous materials that may be encountered during construction.  Work with RTD to finalize a plan in accordance with RTD’s Affirmative Action Program Requirements.  Prepare and submit a plan to manage stormwater runoff during construction.  Work with RTD to prepare a plan for meeting the requirements of the RTD safety certification program during construction, system integration, and closeout.  Work with RTD and design team in the preparation of a risk management plan that will include risk identification, allocation and mitigation based upon 65% final design drawings.  Work with the RTD to provide Public Information support for the project, including community and stakeholder briefings/information meetings.  Following completion of the 100% final design and construction documents, prepare and submit a GMP.




11

Lessons Learned Overall, CDOT was very happy with the results of the EJMT MCC Replacement project. Specifically, CDOT had 28% schedule savings (equivalent to 5 months) and 6% cost savings (8). The interviewees highlighted the following as important items that should be considered by the agencies pursuing CMGC delivery system: 



 

Before the project begins, the agency staff, especially the project manager should perform a significant amount of research to educate themselves on the intricacies of the CMGC project delivery system and potential pitfalls to be able to (i) to make a go or no go decision with respect to the use of CMGC project delivery system for the upcoming project and (ii) identify strategies to avoid potential pitfalls if they choose to go forward with CMGC project delivery system. This is especially critical for the very first CMGC project of an agency. It is important to have a project manager with strong negotiation skills; as the project manager plays a vital role in making critical decisions and during the negotiation of the GMP. It is preferable to have a project manager with estimating expertise and background; that enables the project manager better understand all of the assumptions made by the CMGC in putting together the GMP estimate and facilitates the negotiation process. The agency should require that CMGC’s staff who will be heavily involved during the construction phase should also be heavily involved during the preconstruction phase. This includes not only the superintendent but also foremen for different trades. It is very important to get the buy-in from the executive staff in the agency.

In addition to these lessons learned, the following important lessons learned are extracted from the report that was submitted by CDOT to FHWA Colorado Division at the conclusion of this project (8):  Ensuring that the CMGC’s construction manager is the same individual during preconstruction and construction.  Developing a process for vendor selection that is based on best value as opposed to low bid.  Documenting everything that is addressed/resolved during preconstruction.  Performing thorough site visits to reduce quantity unknowns. In the case of the West Rail Line project, there was a learning curve for the project team. The major lessons learned include allowing the designer to participate in the CMGC selection process and modifying the design contract to include CMGC specific clauses. The designer for this project did not embrace the use of CMGC project delivery by not considering the CMGC’s design suggestions which prevented maximizing the opportunity to take advantage of CMGC’s input. CONCLUDING REMARKS The purpose of this research was to perform an investigation of two very recent transportation projects (EJMT MCC Replacement project and West Rail Line project both of which were undertaken using the CMGC project delivery system) to provide findings that can benefit other transportation agencies. While both owners are Colorado transportation agencies (CDOT and




12

RTD), they utilized significantly different practices in implementing the CMGC project delivery system. Given this, we believe that, the documentation of the experiences of these two agencies can provide useful information not only for other transportation agencies in Colorado but also transportation agencies across the nation. In CDOT’s case, the decision to pilot the CMGC in the EJMT MCC Replacement project was made after careful evaluation and utilization of a sophisticated project delivery selection matrix (13). Furthermore, CDOT had a well-established process to procure the CMGC. The interviewees reiterated many times that CMGC project delivery system is probably the riskiest project delivery system with a lot of moving parts, especially if an agency does not know the intricacies and potential pitfalls. On the other hand, it is the system with the largest potential to result in the best possible project delivery in terms of cost, schedule, and overall quality. Therefore, it is really up to the agency to make or break a project using CMGC project delivery system. According to the interviewees, the only way to take full advantage of this system is for the agency staff, especially the project managers to take the initiative to perform research to educate themselves on this very unique project delivery system. It was noted that such education should include learning from the experiences of those transportation agencies who have implemented CMGC. It was this education initiative which resulted in the decision to modify the contract with the designer to accommodate the unique aspects of CMGC delivery system for CDOT’s case. Overall, CDOT’s experience with this pilot implementation of CMGC project delivery system has been very pleasant and CDOT will be using the CMGC project delivery system in the future when appropriate. As a matter of fact, CMGC project delivery system is one of the three project delivery systems (the other two are design-bid-build and design-build) that are included in the project delivery selection matrix (13) that is used by CDOT to determine the most appropriate delivery system to use in a given project as was discussed earlier in this paper. CDOT currently has four CMGC projects under procurement and is planning to have four more by 2014. It is important to note that CDOT takes educating its employees on innovative contracting practices seriously. It has an Innovative Contracting Division as well as an Innovative Contracting Advisory Committee with different subcommittees focusing on CMGC, design-build, etc. With such a structured approach to innovative contracting concepts and people passionate about those concepts, CDOT is very likely to embrace and be very successful in utilizing the CMGC project delivery system in future projects. In RTD’s case, the rationale for selecting CMGC for the West Rail Line project was not very strong. While the process utilized to procure the CMGC was solid, it was stated that it would have been better to get the designer’s input in selecting the CMGC. Furthermore, even though the designer knew this was a CMGC project, it was not open to the suggestions made by the CMGC; and RTD could not enforce the designer to do so given that the contract between RTD and the designer was not modified to accommodate the unique aspects of CMGC delivery system as was done in CDOT’s case. Therefore, the interviewee highlighted that CMGC projects should include appropriate contract language in the contract with the designer so as to prevent the designer’s potential reluctance to work with the CMGC. Different from CDOT’s case, there was not much initiative to perform research to educate the project participants from RTD on the CMGC concept. Given these, RTD’s experience with its first CMGC project has not been as beneficial. Even though RTD considers the project a success, it is also acknowledged that the potential benefits of CMGC project delivery system were not necessarily fully realized. The interviewee stated that a peer review of RTD’s contracting and procurement practices was performed by the American Public Transportation Association in June 2011 and a report was




13

submitted to RTD subsequently. The report listed the lack of consistency in project delivery systems used by RTD as a weakness that increases workload to RTD staff. Furthermore, the report suggested that RTD should only use one or two project delivery systems to enable staff to better manage the contracts and procedures overall. As a result of this suggestion and due to the fact that the experience with the pilot CMGC project was not able to demonstrate the true value of this project delivery system, there is a new program directive in RTD to consolidate the use of project delivery systems to DB and DBB. In other words, based on this experience, RTD does not anticipate using CMGC anymore. As highlighted by the interviewees representing CDOT, a transportation agency considering implementing the CMGC project delivery system should perform a sufficient amount of research to educate the project participants representing the agency on the CMGC concept (especially for the first CMGC project of that agency). Furthermore, according to the interviewees representing CDOT, this education should include learning from the experiences of those transportation agencies who have implemented CMGC. Within this context, the findings presented in this paper under eight different areas ((i) rationale for choosing the particular project to utilize the CMGC project delivery system, (ii) procurement phase, (iii) preparation of the agency for the CMGC project, (iv) design contract for the CMGC project, (v) guaranteed maximum price and contingency, (vi) subcontracts, (vii) preconstruction services, and (viii) lessons learned) with respect to the experiences of two Colorado transportation agencies with their first CMGC projects are meant to provide guidance for other transportation agencies. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Mr. Ben Acimovic, P.E., Mr. Nabil Haddad, P.E., and Mr. Del Walker, PE for their participation in this research. REFERENCES 1. Shane, J.S., K. Strong, and D.D. Gransberg. Draft Guidebook for Managing Complex Projects, Transportation Research Board, National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2011. 2. Gransberg, D.D. and J.S. Shane. Construction Manager-at-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 402 Topic 40-02, Washington, D.C. 2009. 3. Alder, R. UDOT CMGC Process: Innovative Contracting. In 2011 CMGC Peer Exchange. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2011. 4. Shane, J.S. and D.D. Gransberg. Leveraging the Value of Preconstruction Services in Construction Manager-At-Risk Project Delivery. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, ASCE. Banff, Alberta, Canada. 2010. 5. Mendez, V., Every Day Counts: Innovation Initiative FHWA, Washington, DC. 2010. 6. West, N., D.D. Gransberg, and J. McMinimee, Effective Tools for Projects Delivered Using the Construction Manager/General Contractor. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, In Press. 7. CDOT, Request for Proposal Book 1- Scope of Work Basic Contract Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) Services March 25th Revision, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver. 2010. 8. CDOT, Alternative Contracting Process- SEP 14 Construction Manager General Contractor (CM/GC) 2011 Annual Report, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver. 2012.



Mehmet E. Ozbek, Carla Lopez del Puerto, and Douglas D. Gransberg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

14

RTD. West Rail Line Homepage. www.rtd-fastracks.com/wc_1. Accessed July 12, 2012. RTD. West Rail Line Fact Sheet. www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/wc/West_Construction_Fact_Sheet_4-12.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2012. Creswell, J.W., Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed methods Approaches, (3rd Ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 2009. GAO, Using Structured Interviewing Techniques, in GAO/PEMD-10.1.5, Washington, D.C. 1991. CDOT, Project Delivery Selection Approach, Colorado Department of Transportation Innovative Contracting Advisory Committee, Denver. 2011. CDOT, Request for Proposal Book 2- Statement of Interest (SOI)/Proposal Instructions Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) Services March 29th Revision, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver. 2010. RTD, Request for Proposals for Construction Manager / General Contractor (CM/GC) Services for the West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, Denver. 2006.



Experiences of Two Colorado Transportation Agencies with

Recommend Documents