Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25211

SHARE

   

Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods

DETAILS 124 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-39049-1 | DOI 10.17226/25211

CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK

FIND RELATED TITLES

Dan Tran, Douglas Gransberg, and Christofer Harper; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis Program; Synthesis Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts

 

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.


N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 518 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Dan Tran University of Kansas Lawrence, KS

Douglas Gransberg Gransberg & Associates, Inc. Norman, OK

Christofer Harper Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA

Subscriber Categories

Highways • Administration and Management • Construction

Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

2018

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.


NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 518

Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the Federal Highway Administration. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs.

Project 20-05, Topic 48-04 ISSN 0547-5570 ISBN 978-0-309-39049-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2018948383 © 2018 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.

NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America



The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.



COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 518 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer Deborah Irvin, Program Coordinator Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Scott E. Hitchcock, Senior Editor

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL Brian A. Blanchard, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL (Chair) Stuart D. Anderson, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Socorro “Coco” Briseno, California DOT, Sacramento, CA David M. Jared, Georgia DOT, Forest Park, GA Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Malcolm T. Kerley, NXL, Richmond, VA John M. Mason, Jr., Auburn University, Auburn, AL Roger C. Olson, Minnesota DOT, Bloomington, MN (retired) Benjamin T. Orsbon, South Dakota DOT, Pierre, SD Randall R. Park, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City, UT Robert L. Sack, New York State DOT, Albany, NY Francine Shaw Whitson, FHWA, Washington, DC Joyce N. Taylor, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME Jack Jernigan, FHWA Liaison Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison

TOPIC 48-04 PANEL Stuart D. Anderson, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Jacqueline H. Cromwell, Virginia DOT, Richmond, VA Eric K. Kahlig, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Kevin Kosobud, Minnesota DOT, Baxter, MN Carrie A. Stanbridge, Florida DOT, Lake City, FL Raymond S. Tritt, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Richard B. Duval, FHWA Liaison Gerald “Jerry” Yakowenko, FHWA Liaison Nelson H. Gibson, TRB Liaison



FOREWORD Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their dayto-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis of Highway Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE By Jo Allen Gause Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

State departments of transportation (DOTs) are facing greater challenges today to develop and maintain adequate levels of qualified staff to meet the stewardship requirements for delivering transportation construction projects. One factor contributing to this challenge involves the greater use of alternative contracting methods (ACMs), such as design–build, construction manager/general contractor, public–private partnerships, and other innovative contracting techniques. ACMs shift more responsibility to industry for delivering and managing construction projects than traditional design-bid-build projects. As a result, DOTs must make decisions regarding the appropriate levels and mix of staffing for their ACM projects. This synthesis documents current practices in DOT staffing and organizational structure for ACMs. Information for this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, a content analysis of manuals, guidelines, and templates at 21 agencies that have mature ACM programs, and structured interviews with eight selected DOTs. Dan Tran, University of Kansas, Douglas Gransberg, Gransberg & Associates, and Christofer Harper, Louisiana State University collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable with the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.





CONTENTS

1 Summary 4 4 5 5 7 8 8

9 9 9 14 20 22

23 23 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 35 37 38 40

41 41 41 42 45 49 52 55 58 61 65 68

Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction Synthesis Scope, Goals, and Objectives Key Definitions Synthesis Methodology Conclusions Rubric Synthesis Organization

Chapter 2 Literature Review Introduction Organizational Structure ACM Staffing Use of Consultants in ACMs Summary

Chapter 3 Current Practices of Staffing for ACMs Introduction General Findings on ACMs Organizational Structure for ACMs ACM Staff Experience ACM Staffing Needs and Strategies ACM Staffing at Project Closeout ACM Staff Skill Sets Use of Consultants for ACMs ACM Staff Training Quality Management Staff for ACMs ACM Staffing Issues and Lessons Learned Summary

Chapter 4 Case Examples of Staffing for ACMs Introduction Selection of Case Examples California Department of Transportation Florida Department of Transportation Georgia Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation Missouri Department of Transportation North Carolina Department of Transportation Ohio Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Transportation Summary



69 69 69 70 71

Chapter 5 Conclusions Introduction Conclusions Effective Practices Future Research

72 References 75

Acronyms and Abbreviations

76

Appendix A National Survey Questionnaire

85

Appendix B Aggregated Survey Results

108

Appendix C Case Example Questionnaire

111

Appendix D Research Needs Statement Draft

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.



SUMMARY

Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods State departments of transportation (DOTs) across the country increasingly use alternative contracting methods (ACMs) in addition to the traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) approach to deliver transportation projects and programs. The primary ACMs include design–build (D-B), construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), public–private partnerships (P3), and other innovative techniques [e.g., alternative technical concepts (ATCs), A+B or Cost + Time contracting, a best-value approach to D-B-B projects, and others]. In fact, ACMs are a significant part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Every Day Counts Initiative because they are seen as tools that can be used to improve transportation projects and programs. Staffing needs and the organizational structure for traditional D-B-B projects are well understood. However, state DOTs are faced with more complex decision making regarding appropriate levels and mix of staffing for their ACM projects. The staffing needs and organizational structure for ACMs vary widely among DOTs and have not been well documented. The DOT’s practices are affected by project and program size and type, staffing availability, organizational structure preferences, and ACM selection processes, among other factors. The goal of this synthesis is to identify and document the state of the practice in staffing for ACMs. The report identifies agency organizational structures to deliver ACM projects, documents critical staffing/teaming needs (e.g., knowledge, skill sets, and experience) required for ACMs, and identifies unique staffing issues for the primary ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, and P3). The report also identifies and documents staffing training processes and staffing utilization throughout the project development process. The synthesis found three general ACM staffing approaches: 1. Centralized ACM delivery with separate “innovative contracting” divisions that centrally manage ACM projects. 2. Decentralized ACM delivery where DOT districts/divisions deliver ACM projects. 3. Centralized project development at the DOT level and decentralized project execution by districts/divisions. A web-based survey was developed and distributed to the members of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction, and forty-six responses were received (a 92% response rate). Among the 46 responses, 43 state DOTs reported that they have authority to use one of three primary ACMs (i.e., D-B, CM/GC, and P3). Additionally, most of the state DOTs use a combined organizational structure to deliver ACM projects. The content analysis involved documenting and analyzing state DOT manuals, guidelines, and templates relevant to staffing for ACMs from 21 agencies that have mature ACM programs. Finally, structured interviews with eight selected DOTs provide case examples of organizational structure, staffing 1 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.


2 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods

needs, and key lessons learned on staffing for ACMs. The DOTs were selected based on type of organizational structure, experience with using ACMs, the comprehensiveness and availability of ACM-related documents, and the availability to participate in this study. The synthesis results indicate that staff competency required for the traditional D-B-B approach does not directly apply to the implementation of ACMs. The successful implementation of ACM projects often requires staff with different skill sets, knowledge domain, and competencies. The top five foremost knowledge domain and skill sets found to be critical for implementing ACM projects are summarized as follows: • • • • •

Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff, Risk identification and analysis skills, Strong partnering and team-building skills, Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure, and Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing. The top three “soft” skills essential for the success of implementing ACM projects are:

• • •

Strong commitment to successful outcomes, Accountability and trust, and Innovative problem solving attitude. The full list of important skill sets and knowledge domain is documented in Chapter 5.

Other major prominent conclusions documented in the report are summarized as follows: 1. Organizational structure for ACMs: There is no favored organizational structure used by state DOTs for successfully implementing and integrating ACMs into their capital construction program. Some state DOTs (e.g., Georgia and North Carolina) indicate that the centralized organizational structure effectively produces a streamlined, uniform methodology for implementing ACM projects. Other state DOTs (e.g., Florida, California, and Missouri) assert that the decentralized structure is effective to meet the specific needs of a given ACM project’s geography and local context. Other state DOTs (e.g., Minnesota, Ohio, and Virginia) specify that the combined structure is a suitable approach to implementing their ACM projects. 2. Establishment of an ACM entity/champion for ACMs: Implementing ACMs requires different knowledge, skills, management, and coordination efforts than traditional D-B-B projects. An ACM unit provides necessary knowledge, skills, and resources for state DOTs to successfully implement ACMs. The champion is primarily responsible for ACM projects, and their role varies based on the organizational structure that is established. More than 50 percent of the agencies studied in this synthesis have an organizational unit dedicated to administering and coordinating ACM projects. Most of the mature ACM programs in the nation have established ACM units or have full-time staff dedicated to ACMs. 3. Active involvement of key staff throughout the ACM project development process: ACM projects are typically large and complex projects that involve many agencies and stakeholders. It is critical to identify the key staff for ACM projects and have them engaged in the project development process as early as possible. The active involvement of key staff throughout the project life promotes consistent and timely communication and collaboration, enhances informed decision making by integrating valuable information between project phases, reduces project learning curves, and holds project teams accountable for their decisions. 4. Establishment of qualified project team: Having a dedicated project team with leadership complementary of each other is critical to the success of implementing ACMs. Selection of



Summary 3

project teams necessitates considering knowledge, experience, and skill sets in the implementation of ACM effective practices, as well as having the leadership and collaborative skills to align the disparate interests of ACM project participants. The ability to truly foster partnerships, promote paradigm shift toward beneficial concept, and discourage adversarial relationships from project teams was found essential for the implementation of ACMs. 5. Use of consultants for ACMs: Most states use consultants in conjunction with their staff to deliver ACM projects. More than 90 percent of the agencies studied in this synthesis have used consultants to implement their ACM projects and programs. The level of outsourcing varies from state to state. State DOTs often selectively use consultants where specialized expertise is required for implementing ACMs or to supplement DOT staff. Consultants are often involved in the following typical aspects of ACM projects: preliminary engineering, contract document development, environmental reviews, and construction engineering and inspection. State DOTs often rely heavily on consultants during the early development of their ACM programs, but seek to internalize as agency staff gain more ACM experience. 6. Training: Training plays a pivotal role in the success of implementing ACMs. State DOTs cannot be expected to successfully implement ACMs without sufficient training. Almost 70 percent of the agencies studied in this synthesis provide ACM training to their staff. In addition to project-specific training, state DOTs often provide agency-wide training and peer-to-peer information exchanges [e.g., participation in FHWA, Design–Build Institute of America (DBIA), or AASHTO forums]. Agencies report that it is important for the training program to be specific and project oriented as to how ACMs are developed and delivered in order to articulate and strengthen the DOT’s policies and procedures. The remainder of the less-prominent conclusions, effective practices, and recommendations for future research are presented in Chapter 5. The synthesis suggests that further research be conducted in two areas. The first is research providing guidance on how to select an appropriate project organizational structure and staffing level (e.g., both agency staff and consultants) to effectively and efficiently deliver transportation projects and programs across all ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, P3, ATC, D-B-B Best Value, and others). The second area is the issue of how to attract and retain talented staff and committed core workforce with appropriate skills and competences for ACM implementation, which is vital for state DOTs. However, there is little information or guidance on this issue.



CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Introduction State departments of transportation (DOTs) are facing a challenge of developing and maintaining adequate levels of qualified staffing to meet the oversight, stewardship, and documentation requirements for delivering transportation construction projects. One of the critical components attributable to this challenge involves the greater use of alternative contracting methods (ACMs), including design–build (D-B), construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), and public– private partnership (P3), which shift more responsibility to industry for delivering and managing transportation construction projects. NCHRP Synthesis 450: Forecasting Highway Construction Staffing Requirements found that an accelerated project schedule is the first factor out of 14 factors that influence DOT staffing requirements for highway construction projects (Taylor and Maloney 2013). NCHRP Report 787: Guide for Design Management on Design–Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Projects concluded that the successful implementation of ACMs requires the support of in-house personnel and staff. NCHRP Report 787 also identified five staffing issues that are critical to the success of ACMs, including: (1) personnel assignments, (2) staff availability, (3) staff capability, (4) training, and (5) staff flexibility through utilization of consultants (Minchin et al. 2014). A recent study on strategies for improving transportation project delivery performance for the Connecticut DOT found that “regardless of the size of the ACM program, it is important to build a team with members who have diverse backgrounds and an attitude of innovative problem solving” [Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) 2016]. Staffing needs and organizational structure for traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) projects are well established. State DOTs have historically employed and maintained substantial levels of technical and administrative staff to perform design and construction activities for their projects. Inspection and testing for construction projects was traditionally performed by the DOT staff. However, the Among the common characteristics of staffing needs and organizational structure for ACMs have not been effective ACM structures are the need adequately documented and understood, although hundreds of ACM for a departmental champion, staff transportation projects have been completed across the nation. There is familiarity—though not necessarily a lack of research that explores adequate and efficient staffing practices expertise—with ACMs, and a culture for delivering and managing ACM projects. Reviewing and documentof adaptability and flexibility. Agencying the state of the practice for organization and staffing needs of ACM wide training opportunities and projects is the goal of this synthesis. communications will be imperative for instilling such culture.

(CASE 2016)

One of the challenges for this synthesis is that current staffing practices for ACMs vary widely among DOTs. The practices acceptable for one DOT may not be for another, and may vary even within different DOT districts or regions. ACMs are affected by project and program

4 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.


Introduction 5

size and type, staffing availability, organizational structure preferences, and project delivery decisions, among other factors. Some state DOTs have created a separate innovative contracting program that centrally administers and manages their ACM projects. Other state DOTs retain the decentralized approach to delivering and managing their ACM projects based on geographic areas, while some other state DOTs may prefer using a combined organization structure approach/hybrid model to deliver ACM projects.

Synthesis Scope, Goals, and Objectives The scope of this synthesis is to use information collected from the literature review, national survey questionnaires, and case-based interviews to establish the current state of the practice regarding approaches to staffing for ACM projects. This synthesis focuses on three main ACMs, including D-B, CM/GC, and P3. The overarching goal of this synthesis was to summarize and document current practices for organization and staffing needs of ACM projects. The goal was achieved by accomplishing the following objectives: • Identifying agency organizational structures to deliver ACM projects; • Determining critical staffing/teaming needs such as skill sets, experience levels, or number of

full-time equivalents required for ACMs; • Identifying unique staffing issues for the primary ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, P3); • Documenting staffing utilization processes throughout project life from a scoping phase to

design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases; and • Identifying staffing issues related to the ACM project closeout phase.

In recent years, federal agencies and state DOTs have made advancements in improving project delivery by using ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, and P3) and other innovation techniques to accelerate critical phases of a project, enrich outreach efforts, and improve the communication among stakeholders. In fact, ACMs are a significant part of the FHWA Every Day Counts initiative because they are seen as tools that can be used to improve project delivery. Most state DOTs have implemented ACMs in varying degrees and with varying degrees of success. There have been hundreds of ACM transportation projects completed across the nation. However, little research has explored and documented the organizational structure and staffing requirements when an ACM is used. This synthesis will help state DOTs and transportation agencies adopt new practices, affirm the effectiveness of practices being used, or develop an effective strategy for organization and staffing needs to successfully deliver ACM projects. In addition to a rigorous literature review, the synthesis is based on new data from a survey of state DOTs, a set of structured interviews, case examples, and a content analysis. A general survey on staffing for ACMs provided responses from 46 state DOTs. The content analysis included ACM manuals and guidelines, organizational structure, and relevant staffing documents from state DOTs. Finally, eight case examples from different states were conducted to furnish specific information on organization and staffing needs for ACM projects.

Key Definitions It is noted that the research literature contains little to virtually nothing specific regarding organization and staffing needs for ACM projects. To help the reader gain a full understanding of the meaning of this report, this synthesis will use a number of ACM and staffing key terms. It is recognized that each state may have its own unique definitions of technical terms




describing project delivery, procurement, and contract actions as well as staffing needs. However, to maintain consistent definitions throughout the report, the following terms are used in this synthesis:

ACM Key Terms Alternative Contracting Methods (ACMs): ACMs are viable delivery options for highway construction projects to accelerate project delivery, encourage the deployment of innovation, and minimize unforeseen delays and cost overruns. These options include design-build (D-B), construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), public–private partnership (P3), and other innovation techniques (NCHRP Synthesis 504, Tran et al. 2017). Best Value: An award method that utilizes cost and other management and/or technical factors to select the winning bidders (e.g., cost-plus-time bidding, qualifications, design approach) to minimize impacts and enhance the long-term performance and value of construction (NCHRP Report 561, Scott et al. 2006). Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC): A project delivery method in which a construction manager is selected to provide input during project design and then becomes at risk for the final cost and time of construction (NCHRP Synthesis 402, Gransberg and Shane 2010). Design–Build (D-B): A project delivery method that combines the design and construction phases of project delivery under a single contract (AASHTO 2008). Public–Private Partnership (P3): A P3 is a contractual agreement formed between public- and private-sector organizations, which allows more private-sector participation in heretofore public endeavors. The agreements usually involve a government agency contracting with a private company to finance, renovate, construct, operate, maintain, and/or manage a facility or system (U.S. DOT 2004). Qualification-Based Selection: An award method that focuses on qualitative criteria such as expertise, experience, and past performance as the basis for selection. Price is not considered as a part of the selection process (AASHTO 2006).

Staffing Key Terms Ability Statements: The power to perform an observable activity at the present time. This means that abilities have been evidenced through activities or behaviors that are similar to those required on the job (NCHRP Report 693, Cronin et al. 2012). Centralized Organizational Structure: A hierarchy decision-making structure in which a project is procured and administered through the headquarters offices (CASE 2016). Combined Organizational Structure: A hierarchy decision-making structure in which a project is procured through the headquarters offices and administered through the district offices (CASE 2016). Competency: A combination of skills, knowledge, performance behaviors, and personal attributes that contribute to improved employee performance and organizational success (e.g., conceptual thinking, innovation) (Strategic Staffing Guidebook, Minnesota Department of Employee Relations 2016). Decentralized Organizational Structure: A hierarchy decision-making structure in which a project is procured and administered through the district offices (CASE 2016). Knowledge Statement: An organized body of information usually of a factual or procedural nature which, if applied, makes adequate performance on the job possible. A body of information is applied directly to the performance of a function (NCHRP Report 693, Cronin et al. 2012).



Introduction 7

Organizational Structure: The way in which an agency’s organizational responsibilities and reporting authority are aligned vertically and horizontally and made consistent with capabilities of its staff (Parsons Brinckerhoff et al. 2011). Outsourcing: Utilization of a consultant contractor to manage a contract for goods, services, or works, which includes monitoring performance, commercial aspects, delivery, improvement, complaints, and customer satisfaction (NCHRP Report 693, Cronin et al. 2012). Skill Statement: The declaration of proficient manual, verbal, or mental manipulation of data or things. Skills can be readily measured by a performance test or proficient manipulation of things where quantity and quality of performance are tested, usually within an established time limit (NCHRP Report 693, Cronin et al. 2012). Soft Skills: A broad set of interpersonal skills, competencies, behaviors, character traits, attitudes, career attributes, and personal qualities that enable people to effectively work well with others to achieve their goals (Lippman et al. 2015). Staffing: The process of finding the right people, with the right knowledge, skills, abilities, and fit, who may be hired, who already work for the department, or who may be trained or developed to acquire the right knowledge or skills (NCHRP Report 693, Cronin et al. 2012).

Synthesis Methodology This report is the result of an intersection of the following four independent sources of information: • • • •

Literature review, Survey of state DOTs using a web-based questionnaire, Content analysis of relevant ACM and staffing documents, and Case examples of staffing for ACMs.

The research team conducted a comprehensive literature review of related ACM and staffing documents. An effort was made to seek not only the most current information but also archival information so that the change over time, if any, in staffing issues for ACM projects could be mapped and related to the current state of the practice. The team searched current academic literature, industry publications, state DOT websites, and government reports to find the most current trends and practices in organizational structure and staffing needs for ACMs. Based on the information gathered from the literature review and input from the NCHRP Topic 48-04 panel, the research team developed a questionnaire and conducted a survey of state DOTs. The survey questionnaire was distributed in web-based and paper-based forms to the members of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction, which includes members representing all 50 state DOTs. After several follow-up requests, the research team received responses from 46 state DOTs (92% response rate). Next the research team conducted a content analysis of the DOT organizational structures as well as ACM documents, guidelines, and manuals from 21 state DOTs. A content analysis is defined as a technique for making valid inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of a message, written or visual, using a set of procedures (Holsti 1969, Neuendorf 2002). Finally, the case examples were conducted to supplement and validate the findings from the survey and obtain specific process examples of staffing practices for ACM projects. The research team used the case study method described by Yin (2009) as the basis for methodology for collecting the data from the case examples. Yin asserted that planning the process of accessing and collecting data is essential preparation for efficiently and accurately collecting cogent information. The case examples were selected based on the literature review and survey




responses indicating an agency’s willingness to participate in the research. Additionally, it is equally important to carefully select the cases that can capture different types of organizational structures (decentralized, centralized, and a combination of centralized and decentralized) used to deliver ACM projects. As a result, eight case examples from different states were conducted to furnish specific information related to staffing needs for ACMs. Because there is little to no specific information related to organization and staffing needs for ACM transportation projects available, the primary source of information in this synthesis is the analysis of the survey of state DOTs and case examples.

Conclusions Rubric The criteria used in this report for drawing conclusions were based on the intersection of two or more lines of information from the survey, literature review, content analysis, and case examples. Findings that were discovered during the analysis of one method but not validated by a second method were reported but are not included as conclusions. This process was followed rigorously throughout the entire report.

Synthesis Organization This report is composed of five chapters. The first chapter introduces the subject area and covers the scope, objectives, and study methodology. Chapter Two provides an overview of the most relevant issues to staffing needs and skill sets for ACMs. This chapter briefly discusses the different organizational structures used to deliver ACMs, staffing needs, and skill sets for ACMs, including D-B, CM/GC, and P3, and the use of consultants to implement ACM projects and programs. Chapter Three discusses current practices of staffing for ACMs in the transportation industry. This chapter presents key findings related to organization and staffing needs for ACM based on information collected from a national survey of state DOTs. Chapter Four presents eight case examples regarding staffing needs and skill sets for the success of implementing ACMs. This chapter discusses in detail issues related to organizational structure, staffing issues and needs, ACM skill sets and training, and typical lessons learned on ACM staffing. Finally, Chapter Five briefly summarizes the information presented in previous chapters and offers conclusions and suggestions for future research regarding the staffing practices and strategy for ACM projects and programs.



CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

Introduction This chapter documents the important findings from the literature review on organization and staffing needs for ACM projects. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the background and context for the findings from the survey and case examples presented in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. A discussion of DOT organizational structures provides a framework for understanding staffing issues for implementation of ACMs. Staffing needs and skill sets for ACMs are then presented to determine critical staffing and teaming needs as well as unique staffing issues for primary ACMs, including D-B, CM/GC, and P3 delivery methods. Next, the chapter discusses the use of consultants in ACM projects and its influence on the state DOT workforce. The chapter concludes with a detailed discussion on the influence of organizational structures and staffing needs for the development and implementation of ACMs.

Organizational Structure In business, Deloitte (2008) showed that organizational structure is the vehicle through which business strategy and activities are executed to meet customers’ expectations. In state DOTs, the final report for NCHRP Project 20-24 (83), “Alternative DOT Organizational Models for Delivering Service,” indicated that a DOT organizational structure has a substantial impact on the ability to plan, build, operate, and maintain statewide transportation projects and programs (Secrest et al. 2012). The study also found that improving project delivery is a major driver for organizational change within many state agencies. There are many different types of organizational structures. However, ACM structures can be grouped into three main categories: • Centralized structure, • Decentralized structure, and • Combined structure.

It is evident that there is no preferred structure used by state DOTs for implementing ACMs (Keck et al. 2010). Most DOTs prefer using a mix of centralized and decentralized structures (Secrest et al. 2012). A recent study on improving transportation project delivery performance conducted by the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) found: . . . there is no favored organizational structure used by DOTs for implementing and integrating ACMs into their departments. It is recognized that a DOT’s overall organizational structure and existing responsibilities for project development, design, and construction may be considered in establishing the organizational structure for delivering projects using ACMs. (CASE 2016)




NCHRP Report 662: Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery also noted: Many state DOTs have reorganized both internally and externally to provide for a more efficient delivery of programs. The intent to reorganize was not always based on the need to deliver projects faster but rather on the realization that some forms of efficiencies could be attained if the DOT reorganized parts of its structure. (Keck at al. 2010)

The following sections discuss the three types of organizational structures used by DOTs in detail.

Centralized Organizational Structure Under a centralized structure, all knowledge, skills, and resources for specific projects are consolidated. The headquarters or central office controls and performs most nonconstruction work, including roadway and bridge design, environmental analysis, and project planning and programming. Secrest et al. (2012) found that the centralized structure is most effective when in-depth expertise is critical to meeting a state DOT’s goals. Keck et al. (2010) highlighted that it is a trend for smaller DOTs to use the centralized organizational structure because it reduces duplication of responsibilities and improves program delivery. For example, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) uses a centralized organizational structure that consists of a director, a deputy director and chief operating officer, and a deputy director and chief engineer. There are three assistant chief engineers of planning, design, and operation, and an assistant chief administrator to support deputy directors. The alternative project delivery division works directly with the director and deputy directors. The AHTD has 10 districts, and the business conducted in each district is handled and monitored by the central office. The centralized organizational structure helps the AHTD maintain a clear understanding of the desired outcomes throughout the ACM (e.g., D-B) project development and procurement. The AHTD forms a Department Procurement Team (DPT) to administer, manage, and implement ACM projects. The composition of the personnel assigned to the DPT may vary widely from project to project, but in general, the DPT should be a multidiscipline group consisting of engineers and other technical/ professional staff with design, construction, materials, contract administration, and legal expertise. If significant project development is required, additional dedicated team members should be considered. All team members should agree early in the process on the project goals, quality expectations, risks, risk assignment, and other important issues. (AHTD 2015)

The Georgia DOT (GDOT) has used the centralized structure to deliver almost all of its ACM projects. ACM projects are administered and managed through the Office of Innovative Delivery. Detailed information on staffing for ACMs in GDOT can be found in the case example presented in Chapter 4. The Innovative Delivery Office specializes in managing innovative programs in transportation system delivery, through Public Private Partnerships, Design-Build, and other alternative delivery methods, handling major transportation projects, feasibility studies and special projects in conjunction with Georgia Department of Economic Development and Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), including Bus Rapid Transit capital program support, and Park and Ride facilities. (GDOT 2017)

Figure 1 shows a generic centralized organizational structure for state DOTs. This generic chart was developed based on a comprehensive review and analysis of multiple state DOT organizational structures across the U.S. However, it is important to note that the organizational structure varies state by state, and this generic chart serves as an illustrative purpose only. In this model, the Director or Commissioner or Secretary is the central figure in the development and implementation of transportation policy. The Director is responsible for oversight of transportation planning, design, construction, and maintenance, as well as operations of transportation modes under his/her jurisdiction.



Literature Review 11

Centralized Structure Transportation Commission

Director Deputy Director & Chief Operating Officer Assistant Director Administration

Chief Engineer Division of Engineering

Districts

Division of Construction

- District 1 - District 2 - District ...

Assistant Director ...

Division of ….

Figure 1. Generic centralized organizational structure.

The main benefits of centralization related to project and program delivery are as follows: • Program consistency—Centralization allows state DOTs to adopt a more consistent approach

to delivering transportation programs and projects across their states; • Policy alignment—Under the centralized structure, field staff align their actions and decisions

with the department policies; • Cost savings—Centralization may help better utilize staff and operate more efficiently; and • Improved external and internal communication—Centralization provides opportunities to convey a clearer and more consistent message across the department (Secrest et al. 2012). The main drawbacks of centralization related to project and program delivery are: • Potential delays—The Director and the top-level management are often overloaded by decision

making, and this sometimes causes a delay to project and program delivery; • Less flexibility—Under the centralized structure, field staff have difficulty operating with

changes in the work environment; and • Less employee empowerment—Employees in middle and lower-level management have limited opportunities to participate in decision making and planning (Secrest et al. 2012).

Decentralized Organizational Structure The decentralized structure includes district offices that have greater autonomous decisionmaking power for design, procurement, construction, and public engagement decisions. Over the past several decades, state DOTs tended to decentralize functions to improve public involvement and customer satisfaction (Secrest et al. 2012). The decentralized structure is often based on geographic areas. For example, the organization structure of the Texas DOT (TxDOT) is decentralized to suit the state’s geography and mission. TxDOT includes 25 districts that oversee design, construction, and maintenance. The Texas Transportation Commission and TxDOT Administration set goals and direction for planning. District engineers and their staff are largely autonomous. They are responsible for bottom-up identification of needs, projects and




priorities, project development, and project delivery. Districts perform most project development activities independently, with limited oversight from TxDOT headquarters staff (TxDOT 2010). Keck et al. (2010) found that the decentralized organization structure has proved to be successful at TxDOT. The decentralized organization structure is effective to deliver programs and projects while addressing concerns of public involvement or environmental issues. In many regards, the decentralization of decision-making authority has proven to be a success. There is general agreement internally at TxDOT that the districts are well suited to identify and respond to the unique demands of each of their respective areas. With the allocation of limited funds, the districts are motivated to prioritize projects critically and explore creative solutions. (Keck et al. 2010)

In addition to districts, TxDOT has a new field support structure through a region approach. TxDOT is implementing four Regional Support Centers (RSCs) to consolidate support personnel and resources among its 25 districts. The RSCs are intended to improve efficiency of support activities and help share workload across districts within the region. Depending on district size, each region supports four to eight districts and provides operational and project delivery support (e.g., right-of-way, design coordination, environmental review, etc.). Each RSC is led by a Regional Director and two Assistant Regional Directors, one for Operations Support and one for Project Delivery Support. The regions report to the Assistant Executive Director for Field and District Operations (TxDOT 2010). The Missouri DOT (MoDOT) also has a dominant decentralized organization structure for project and program delivery. MoDOT divides the state into seven districts: Northwest, Northeast, Kansas City, Central, St. Louis, Southwest, and Southeast. Because these districts are more locally focused, this arrangement has the great advantage of establishing and maintaining strong relationships with local and regional governments than a single central office. Keck et al. (2010) highlighted that when recognizing the benefits of using the decentralized structure to deliver programs and projects, MoDOT allows the district offices to make decisions that move projects forward. The central office provides oversight and support to the seven districts that are primarily responsible for delivery of ACM projects. About eighty percent (80%) of employees work in the seven districts, with the remainder working in the various divisions within the central office (MoDOT 2017). Similar to TxDOT, the district engineers work directly with the Office of Chief Engineer to administer and execute their ACM projects. The case example presented in Chapter 4 provides more detailed information on ACM organization and staffing needs in MoDOT. Figure 2 shows a generic decentralized organizational structure used in state DOTs. As mentioned previously, the organizational structure varies among states; thus, this generic chart serves as illustration only. Different from the centralized organizational structure, the district offices typically have a direct relationship with the Director and an indirect relationship with Decentralized Structure

Transportation Commission

Informational Report Direct Report

Director

Assistant Director Engineering & Operation

Districts



Figure 2. Generic decentralized organizational structure.




the Engineering and Operation Chief/Assistant Director. The district offices have greater auto nomous decision-making power over functions like design, communications, fleet management, and public engagement. The main benefits of decentralization related to project and program delivery are listed as follows: • Employee empowerment—Decentralization provides employees with opportunities to innovate

and make judgment calls to save time and cost for project delivery. • Suitable for large states with different geographical areas—Decentralized structures allow district offices to effectively deal with large states varying in topography, climate, and socio cultural issues. • Improved relationships with publics and local governments—Under the decentralized structure, the districts are able to maintain stronger relationships with local and regional governments than a single central office (Secrest et al. 2012, Keck et al. 2010). The main drawbacks of decentralization related to project and program delivery are as follows: • Redundancies—Decentralized structures tend to create redundancy functions, resources, and

processes across all district offices or decentralized units. • Inconsistency—Under the decentralized structure, field activities are sometimes not aligned

with central office policies, priorities, and strategic direction (Secrest et al. 2012).

Combined Organizational Structure Previous studies found that most state DOTs favor a mix of centralization and decentralization to accommodate ACMs (Secrest et al. 2012; CASE 2016). Many agencies are selectively centralizing policy, command, administrative, and communication functions/controls while decentralizing project delivery. Secrest et al. (2012) pointed out that the anticipated benefits of this approach include better program consistency, reduced costs, enhanced policy alignment, and improved communications. CASE (2016) highlighted that the overall organizational structures of state DOTs and their existing staff responsibilities can be considered in establishing the organizational structure for delivering ACM projects. For example, the combined organizational structure in the Colorado DOT (CDOT) has two main components: central offices and regional offices. The central offices have responsibilities to provide resources and expertise for the regional offices to deliver ACM projects. The central offices also participate in the selection committee, track the ACM procurement progress, and share information among regional offices. The chief engineer (central office) plays a critical role in ACM projects. The regional offices have responsibilities to administer and execute ACM projects. Typically, the procurement activities of ACM projects are conducted at the regional offices in coordination with the chief engineer. The Virginia DOT (VDOT) also employs a combined organizational structure to deliver ACM projects. The chief engineer provides leadership to the nine districts, and the deputy chief engineer provides leadership to engineering and operations divisions. The districts determine candidate projects for ACMs and send the list of projects to the Alternative Project Delivery division. The Office of Alternative Project Delivery works with other central offices to identify good candidates for ACM projects and is responsible for pre-award activities, procurement, and awarding the ACM projects. Once the project is awarded, it is handed to the district office for contract administration and execution (VDOT 2017). VDOT also has the Office of Public-Private Partnerships (P3 Office) to develop, administer, and manage P3 projects. The case example presented in Chapter 4 provides more detailed information on ACM organization and staffing needs in VDOT.




Combined Structure Transportation Commission Director

Chief Engineer

Deputy Director & Chief Operating Officer

Division of Engineering

Districts

Division of Construction


Assistant Director Administration

Informational Report Direct Report


Division of ….

Figure 3. Generic combined organizational structure.

Many models exist across the country for how a state DOT can be organized. In fact, we have done study after study that show the mission is the same but the way the states are set up to deliver on that mission can vary widely. No model is perfect nor considered the “answer key” to the org chart question. They all work; people make them work. (Tom Warne, former Utah DOT chief, 2009)

Figure 3 shows a generic combination of centralized and decentralized organizational structures of state DOTs. As mentioned previously, this generic chart serves as illustrative only. The organizational structure varies state by state. In the combined structure, districts and field staff have more opportunities to be innovative and involved in the decision-making processes, while the central offices focus on establishing policy making, standard setting, and command roles to improve consistency and eliminate redundancies. The purpose of combined structures is to enhance benefits and mitigate drawbacks between centralized and decentralized structures. In summary, organizational structures very among states. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. There is no favored organizational structure used by DOTs for delivering their transportation projects and programs.

ACM Staffing Staffing levels play an important role in the success of delivering ACM projects. However, as mentioned previously, the research literature on ACM staffing utilization and implementation in state DOTs is very limited. Most state DOTs provide staff for their ACM projects on a project-by-project basis. The numbers of staff assigned to ACMs vary from state to state. The use of consultants in conjunction with in-house staff is a typical model for implementing ACMs. The following sections discuss briefly skill sets and experience levels required for each primary ACM delivery method.

D-B Staffing Needs and Skill Sets D-B projects are typically large projects that involve many agencies and stakeholders. Different from traditional D-B-B projects, D-B often demands different skill sets, processes, and management efforts to be successful for implementation. Through interviewing 11 mature D-B




agencies, Scott et al. (2016) identified the following practices in organizational structure and staffing for implementing D-B projects and programs:

• Establishment of an organizational unit dedicated to administering and coordi-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

nating the D-B program in recognition of D-B projects requiring different skills and management and coordination efforts for implementation to be successful, and that some staff may have difficulty transitioning to the D-B process; Selection of project teams based in part on their education and experience in the implementation of D-B practices, as well on having personalities wellsuited to the leadership and collaborative skills needed to align the often disparate interests of D-B project participants; Avoidance of cyclic hiring and downsizing plans (which can act to erode morale and deplete institutional knowledge) in favor of nurturing a stable workforce that has the skills and leadership ability to deliver both small and large projects; Support of attractive career development paths, which emphasize education, training, and continuing personal and professional development, to attract and retain key personnel and ensure a sustainable core workforce; Training of personnel on fundamental D-B principles, supplemented by peerto-peer information exchanges to transfer project management knowledge to targeted audiences; Commitment of senior leaders to the success of the D-B program by: – Recognizing the need for key personnel to be trained and educated in D-B practices; – Empowering project engineers with appropriate decision-making authority to help ensure timely resolution of any issues encountered; and – Championing D-B benefits both to internal staff and to other stakeholders. Alignment of functional support areas and other project partners to ensure the organizational structure supports the effective planning, design, procurement, execution, and closeout of projects (to this end, train and develop subject matter experts capable of effectively carrying out supporting activities such as proposal evaluations and design reviews in a manner that supports the D-B process); and Active involvement of key personnel for the duration of the project to: – Help ensure that valuable information is not lost between project phases (thereby reducing or eliminating project learning curves); – Foster consistent and timely communication, collaboration, and issue resolution with the design–builder; and – Hold the project team accountable for decision making. (Scott et al. 2016)

Scott et al. (2016) also identified the number of dedicated full-time staff for D-B implementation across the 11 state DOTs. As shown in Table 1, all state DOTs have at least one full-time staff in the headquarters or the central office acting as an organizational unit dedicated to administering, coordinating, and championing the D-B program. For D-B staff experience and skill sets, state DOTs often demand staff assigned to D-B project teams be well versed in D-B concepts and processes and have a strong commitment to the project. For example, CDOT requires that all staff working on D-B projects must be familiar with the



16 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods Table 1. Dedicated D-B staff positions (adapted from Scott et al. 2016) State DOT Colorado Florida Maryland Minnesota Missouri North Carolina* Ohio Oregon Texas** Utah*** Virginia

Internal Staff Dedicated Full-Time Part-Time Support 1 2 3 1 3 1 15 1 3 1 86 1 1 8

*Staff are dedicated to both D-B and P3. **This is an outlier as TxDOT only implements D-B for very large or mega projects. ***One full-time manager overseeing D-B and CM/GC programs, supported by one part-time staff focused on D-B and one part-time staff focused on CM/GC.

fundamentals and principles of D-B contracting and versed in the preparation of prescriptive and performance provisions (CDOT 2016). Similarly, the AHTD states that D-B staff must have an understanding of the tasks and steps leading to the selection of the design–builder and the process to administer and execute D-B projects (AHTD 2015). Scott et al. (2016) indicated that the successful implementation of D-B requires D-B agency staff to have experience in reviewing submittals for compliance to contract requirements and to be open to solutions that are not aligned with their own preferences. The study also found that: The fast-paced and collaborative nature of D-B projects requires higher level management and decisionmaking skills, which can accelerate the career development of DOT engineering staff by placing them in leadership positions earlier in their career trajectories. [Italics added] (Scott et al. 2016)

The composition of a D-B project team may vary widely from project to project, region by region, and state by state. However, an example of D-B team, adapted from CDOT (2016), includes the following staff: • Project Director: This staff acts as the single point of authority responsible for the administra-

tion and implementation of the project. The Project Director is the only person on the project team that has approval authority. All approvals by the Project Director are required to be documented in writing. The Project Director has the authority to remove any team member for failure to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the project. • Project Manager: This staff directly supports the Project Director in leading the project and assumes specific leadership responsibilities at the direction of the Project Director. The Project Manager often leads the development of the design and the Request for Proposal (RFP) development and is involved in more of the intimate details of the project. • Executive Oversight Committee: This committee provides overall policy guidance for the project and the D-B procurement process. The main roles of the committee are to: –– Confirm the project goals, –– Confirm the release of the Letters of Interest (LOIs), –– Confirm the release of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), –– Confirm the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) Evaluation Plan, –– Confirm the short-listed firms, –– Confirm the Proposal Evaluation Plan, –– Approve the release of the RFP, and –– Present the recommended apparent successful proposer to the Chief Engineer, who will ultimately make the final selection.



Literature Review 17 • Project Leadership Team: This staff is responsible for the day-to-day management, coordina-

tion, and development of the project and the D-B procurement process. This team often comprises members of CDOT, the consultant team, local agency funding partners, and public involvement representatives. • Project Management Team: This staff includes key members from the Project Leadership Team and is supplemented by representatives of key stakeholders, FHWA, and critical technical disciplines. The Project Management Team provides recommendations to the Executive Oversight Committee. • Project Technical Team: This staff comprises the discipline leads that may be staff from CDOT or from consultants, depending on the availability of CDOT technical staff. Team members may be assigned specific sections of the contract for oversight, such as roadway, structures, hydraulics, pavement design, right-of-way, environmental compliance, public relations, management of traffic, or quality.

CM/GC Staffing Needs and Skill Sets Selecting the right team members is critical for the success of implementing CM/GC projects. Smith (2005) indicated that the team selection for CM/GC projects typically includes qualification and experience. It is noted that the administration of CM/GC projects is ultimately not much different than D-B-B projects. However, state DOTs demand different skill sets to be successful in implementation of CM/GC projects. The final report for NCHRP Project 10-85, A Guidebook for Construction Manager-at-Risk Contracting for Highway Projects (Gransberg et al. 2013b), identified the following important skill sets for CM/GC: • The executive staff in the agency play a pivotal role in implementing CM/GC. • A DOT project manager is required to have strong negotiation skills because the project man-

ager plays a vital role in making critical decisions during the negotiation of the project price/ guaranteed maximum price (GMP). • It is important that a DOT project manager has estimating expertise and background to successfully manage CM/GC projects. This enables the project manager to better understand all assumptions made by the contractor in putting together the project price/GMP estimate and facilitate the negotiation process. In CM/GC, a DOT project manager must act as facilitator, negotiator, decision maker, collaborator, manager, and leader and must be an active participant in every step of the preconstruction and construction phases (CDOT 2015). A DOT project manager also must have technical expertise and background to be able to question the design, estimates, and construction decisions. The roles and responsibilities of CM/GC staff during the preconstruction phase are summarized below (adapted from CDOT 2015). DOT Project Manager: Facilitating the collaborative effort between the Design Consultant and Contractor through active communication and project team meetings that include a Partnering Workshop, Project Scoping Workshop, Value Engineering (VE) Workshop, Design Review Meetings, and Cost Model Review meetings. The project manager also leads the Cost Model and Estimate Review process, questioning both the Contractor and Independent Cost Estimator (ICE) estimates. Design Consultant: Taking direction from the DOT Project Manager in development of the design, the Design Consultant must keep the DOT Project Manager informed and involved in all design reviews and risk decisions. The Design Consultant is also required to work with the Contractor to manage the iterative design process. Independent Cost Estimator (ICE): The ICE has the responsibility to question the Contractor’s prices, quotes, methods, and estimate to ensure that the price is fair and open from the




Contractor. The ICE is required to bring on subject-matter expertise if they lack in-house knowledge of a major work item. Construction Manager/General Contractor: A Contractor has the responsibility to provide input on schedule, phasing, constructability, material availability, and cost throughout the design phase of the project. The Contractor is also responsible for identifying project risks and providing guidance for establishing project risk pools. The roles and responsibilities of CM/GC staff during the construction phase are summarized below (adapted from CDOT 2015). DOT Project Manager: Having a significant role and responsibility for administering the Risk Pools developed during the Preconstruction Phase with the support from the state construction Project Engineer. Construction Project Engineer: It is expected that the Construction Project Engineer be actively involved in the Preconstruction Phase so that they are familiar with the details of the Contractor’s Risk Management Plan, the Risk Pools, and the construction methods discussed during design development. The Construction Project Engineer can be state DOT personnel or a consultant. Design Consultant: It is expected the Design Consultant be retained during the construction phase and respond in a timely and cooperative manner to inquiries from the DOT Project Manager and the Contractor. Construction Manager/General Contractor: The role of the Contractor changes to a General Contractor during construction and is responsible for ensuring all environmental, safety, and permit commitments, which are specified in the Plans, Specifications, and Contract Documents, are implemented during construction. The Contractor is also responsible for tracking the performance, cost, and time savings of the innovative construction methods.

P3 Staffing Needs and Skill Sets Gibson et al. (2015) found that most P3 models are relatively new to state DOTs, and state agencies often lack the requisite in-house experience or expertise to manage P3 contractual issues and to monitor P3 project progress. FHWA (2012a) stated that skilled staff to develop, evaluate, manage, and oversee P3 projects is a critical component to the success of establishing a P3 program. Transportation agencies seeking to explore and develop a P3 program face a number of organizational capacity challenges. The primary challenges are acquiring or developing new skills, managing organizational and cultural changes, coordination, and education of stakeholders, and conserving institutional knowledge. (FHWA 2012a)

In P3 projects, the agency staff has less responsibility for design and construction, but more for contract management and oversight of the private partner (FHWA 2012a). In addition, P3 staff is often required to establish performance standards rather than construction specifications. This change in roles may lead to a shift in technical skills or development of new skills because there may be less need for hands-on design, and more need for setting of broader performance standards along with project management and oversight (FHWA 2012a). Gibson et al. (2015) summarized several concerns related to P3 staffing issues when state DOTs decide to privatize specific functions, described as follows: • Loss of skills and expertise to conduct essential functions in-house, or to effectively check,

evaluate, or approve the work of external sources; • Conflict with in-house workforce; • Need for new employees with different expertise and management skills; and • Less capacity to serve a traditional role for hiring entry-level engineers to gain competent

experience.




Developing P3 projects requires forming and managing multidisciplinary teams that understand the interactions of various technical, financial, and legal factors. Typically, staff in state DOTs with existing D-B programs or toll facilities often have some of the skills and structures in place to facilitate P3 project development rather than state DOTs without D-B programs or toll facilities (FHWA 2012a). To manage organizational and culture changes, champions at all levels are needed. In some cases, the champion may be the governor; in others it may be a legislator, agency director, or community or business leader. A P3 champion can communicate the business case and public good from P3s (both within public agencies and among stakeholders), gather support for the concept, facilitate the streamlining of processes and organizational change, set and manage expectations, and provide assurance to the private sector of the public sector’s commitment to the P3 model. (FHWA 2012a)

The three common approaches to establishing new staff capabilities for P3 projects and program are hiring consultant advisors, developing internal capacity, and establishing new P3 units. Table 2 summarizes strengths and constraints for each approach. Hiring consultant advisors effectively provides the needed skill sets, knowledge, and technical and financial perspective that is not easy to cultivate in house for state DOTs that are new to a P3. However, state DOTs still need sufficient expertise in house to keep consultants on track and ensure that their advice is consistent with agency goals (FHWA 2012a). Training existing and new staff is a common practice to implementation of P3, whether or not state DOTs use external advisors. FHWA (2012a) indicated that “developing the skills to manage the P3 process can be done through training existing staff as well as hiring new staff. In some cases, external advisors hired to assist on a P3 project for their technical, legal, or financial expertise can also be used to conduct training of internal staff.” Establishing specialized P3 units is a model increasingly used to address P3 staffing needs and organizational capacity. The P3 units are typically staffed with transportation sector– specific and other sector experts, as well as experts in economics and finance, regulation, procurement, communications, and training (FHWA 2012a). The roles and responsibilities of a P3 unit often include the following: • Providing technical assistance and training on P3 project development and procurement; • Helping to identify and prioritize potential P3 projects;

Table 2. The approach to establishing staff capabilities for P3 (FHWA 2012a).



20 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods • Providing regulatory oversight of P3 projects; and • Promoting the P3 program by soliciting projects, attracting potential partners and investors,

and educating the public. (FHWA 2012a) Only a few state DOTs currently have an established P3 program with a dedicated P3 staff. For example, VDOT has established the Office of Public-Private Partnerships (P3 Office). This office has responsibilities to identify, evaluate, develop, and deliver Virginia’s P3 transportation projects in a consistent, transparent, timely, and cost-effective manner. The main roles and responsibilities of key staff of P3 projects at VDOT are summarized as follows [adapted from The Commonwealth of Virginia, 2014]: • Director: The Director is responsible for overseeing all aspects of the P3 program within

VDOT. This includes outreach and stakeholder coordination and reporting all program and project activities to the Secretary of Transportation and Agency Administrators. The Director is also responsible for working collaboratively with other public agencies and the industry regarding the Virginia P3 program and P3 projects, complying with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. • Agency Administrators: The Agency Administrators have the responsibility and legal authority to make decisions on commercial and contractual terms related to P3 projects within the transportation agency. • P3 Steering Committee: The Committee evaluates and reviews financing options for the development and/or operation of transportation facilities considered under the PPTA. The Committee consists of the following members: two member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board; staff director of the House Committee on Appropriations or designee, and the staff director of the Senate Committee on Finance, or designee; a Deputy Secretary of Transportation who serves as the chairperson; the chief financial officer of either the DOT or the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, as appropriate; and a nonagency public financial expert, as selected by the Secretary of Transportation. The Committee will meet on an as-needed basis and will be briefed by the Commissioner of Highways and/or Director of Rail and Public Transportation, and the Director. • Oversight Board: The Commonwealth Transportation Board oversee P3 projects and works collaboratively with the Commissioner of Highways and the Director of Rail and Public Transportation regarding the status of P3 projects at major milestones.

Use of Consultants in ACMs Two national studies [NCHRP Synthesis 246: Outsourcing of State Highway Facilities and Services (Witheford 1997) and NCHRP Synthesis 313: State DOT Outsourcing and Private-Sector Utilization (Warne 2003)] found that two main factors influencing the use of consultants by transportation agencies are staff constraints and the requirement of specialty skill sets. The use of consultants plays an important role in absorbing the peaks and filling in the gaps when staff are leaving or retiring (CASE 2016). Many state DOTs use consultants in conjunction with their staff to deliver ACM projects. The level of outsourcing varies from state to state. Some state DOTs selectively use consultants where specialized expertise is required to implement ACM projects. Other state DOTs use consultants to cover a full range of activities including, but not limited to, the following: • • • •

Developing ACM practices and documents; RFP/RFQ development; Contract development; Environmental reviews and document preparation;



Literature Review 21 • • • •

Preliminary engineering design; Project management; ACM method assessment and selection; and Technical proposal assessments, but not decision making (CASE 2016).

State DOTs with large ACM programs (e.g., Florida, Texas, and Virginia) tend to have a high level of outsourcing with consultants used for multiple aspects of ACM project development and management, including preliminary engineering, design, oversight, and construction engineering and inspection (Scott et al. 2016). Table 3 summarizes the typical activities that consultants often provide in implementing ACMs. CASE (2016) provides the following suggestions related to use of consultants for the Connecticut DOT (CTDOT) to implement ACM projects: • It is important for CTDOT to engage a general engineering consultant with ACM expertise to

help accelerate the effectiveness of the ACM office and project success. • Engaging consultants in ACM training is important to train agency staff from little experience to operational experience. When transitioning from use of a consultant to the use of in-house staff for ACM projects, it is important to take into consideration the volume of projects and preparedness of staff to fulfill ACM project’s requirements. • To institutionalize ACMs, junior-level staff is encouraged to be trained and be involved in over-the-shoulder reviews with any general engineering consultants to gain experience in RFQ and RFP preparation, contractor selection, and management of ACMs. State DOTs have several concerns of outsourcing related to their staffing needs, including (1) losing the skills and expertise, (2) conflicting with DOT workforce and possible legal restrictions, (3) different expertise and skill sets needed for new employees, and (4) having less capacity to serve a traditional role for hiring entry-level engineers (Witheford 1997). Scott et al. (2016) found that overreliance on consultants can stunt the growth and development of the DOT’s own staff, creating a void of sufficient ACM experience and qualifications to provide meaningful project-level decision making. As a result, some state DOTs noted that they relied heavily on consultants during the early development and expansion of a DOT’s ACM program to prepare standard templates and assist with training. However, as agency staff gained more experience with ACMs, the need for the use of consultants becomes less critical (Scott et al. 2016). For example, CTDOT indicates that “it does not serve the department’s long-term interests or capacity to rely on consultants for certain recurring tasks and needed skill sets” (CASE 2016). Table 3. Use of consultants in ACMs (adapted from Scott et al. 2016). State DOT Development of Solicitation Documents Colorado Florida Maryland Minnesota Missouri Ohio Oregon Texas Utah Virginia Washington

Outsourcing Activities Project Design Development Oversight and/or Preliminary Engineering

Construction Engineering and Inspection

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X




Similarly, through interviews with three agencies [the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), MoDOT, and the Oregon DOT] that have mature ACM programs, Scott et al. (2016) highlighted that these state DOTs view outsourcing to be a “good startup model,” but currently seek to internalize more ACM functions.

Summary The literature review results presented in this chapter document the most relevant topics to staffing for ACMs. The review provides key information for understanding the state of practice for ACM staffing and human resources in the transportation industry. The key concepts of organizational structures, staffing needs and skill sets, and the use of consultants for ACM projects were discussed in detail. The concepts in this chapter set the basis for the survey and case example protocols applied in this synthesis. This chapter found that a variety of organizational structures have been used successfully by state DOTs for implementing and integrating ACMs in their department, including decentralized, centralized, and combined structures. There is no favored organizational structure for ACMs. State DOTs consider their existing structure, the volume of ACM projects, and their staff experience and skill sets. ACMs often demand different skill sets, processes, management strategies, and coordination efforts from state DOT staff. The need for a departmental champion, staff familiarity, and a culture of adaptability and flexibility are typical staffing strategy components to ensure the success of implementing ACM projects and programs. Additionally, it is critical for state DOTs to select staff with diverse backgrounds, collaborative skills, and an attitude of innovative problem solving for ACM teams. The use of consultants for ACMs was found to be much-needed assistance, particularly during the early phase of development of ACM programs. However, state DOTs consider the transition from use of consultants to use of in-house staff for the sustainable development of ACM projects and programs. Training plays an important role to both build in-house staff capabilities and promote culture change.



CHAPTER 3

Current Practices of Staffing for ACMs Introduction This chapter presents current practices of staffing for ACM projects. To collect the most updated information on the use of ACMs and staffing for ACMs in transportation projects, a web-based survey was distributed to the voting members of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction, which includes representatives from all 50 state DOTs. The findings presented in this chapter are based on 46 state DOT respondents. In addition, the content analysis results of DOT manuals, guidelines, and relevant documents obtained from the survey are also included to support the findings. The chapter begins with reporting the general findings on the use of ACMs, including D-B, CM/GC, and P3 across state DOTs in the nation. It then discusses the current practice of staffing for ACMs. Finally, the chapter summarizes unique staffing issues and typical lessons learned on effective staffing practices for ACMs. It is important to note that the 46 state DOT respondents were not required to respond to all questions in the survey. As a result, the sample size (n) of each question varies. The following sections discuss the key findings from the survey in detail.

General Findings on ACMs The authority to use ACMs varies among state DOTs. Out of 46 responses, most state DOTs (93%) reported that they have authority to use D-B; 21 state DOTs (46%) have authority to use P3; and 18 state DOTs (39%) have authority to use CM/GC. Three state DOTs from the survey do not have authority to use ACMs: Oklahoma, Iowa, and North Dakota. Figure 4 graphically illustrates the current authority to use ACMs in transportation projects. Overall, state DOTs have more experience on delivering D-B projects than CM/GC and P3 projects, as shown in Figure 5. Specifically, 21 state DOTs (54%) reported that they have delivered more than 15 D-B projects, while only two state DOTs (11%) have delivered more than 15 CM/GC projects. None of the state DOTs that responded to the survey have delivered more than 15 P3 projects. Most DOT respondents have delivered fewer than five CM/GC and P3 projects: 56% and 63%, respectively. State DOTs often use ACMs for large projects. The survey results show that most state DOTs (more than 50%) have used ACMs less than 5% in terms of number of projects, but their ACM projects have accounted for more than 10% of dollar volume in their annual construction program. Figures 6 and 7 summarize the use of ACMs in the annual construction program.




D-B

93%

P3

46%

CM/GC

39%

0%

20%

40% 60% Frequency mentioned

80%

100%

Figure 4. State authority to use ACMs (n = 46). 100% D-B (n=39) Frequency mentioned

80%

CM/GC (n=18) 63%

P3 (n=16)

56%

60%

40% 28% 20%

54%

31%

21%

15%

10%

11%

6% 6%

0%

0% 1 to 4

5 to 10

11 to 15

>15

Number of Projects

Figure 5. Number of projects delivered by ACMs. 100%

Frequency mentioned

80% 60% 46% 40%

29.70% 13.50%

20% 0%

8.10% 0% 20%

ACMs to construction program in terms of number of projects

Figure 6. ACM projects in annual construction program (n = 37).



Current Practices of Staffing for ACMs 25

Frequency mentioned

100% 80% 60% 41.60% 40%

30.50%

20% 0%

13.80% 0.00% 50%

Figure 7. ACM dollar volume in annual construction program (n = 37).

Organizational Structure for ACMs Most state DOTs use a combined structure (e.g., centralized procurement and decentralized administration and execution) to deliver their ACM projects. As shown in Figure 8, 27 out of 38 DOT respondents (71%) reported that they use a combined structure for their D-B projects; 13 out of 18 respondents (72%) use a combined structure for their CM/GC projects; and six out of 15 respondents (47%) use a combined structure for their P3 projects. Only two state DOTs (Florida and Missouri) reported that they use a decentralized structure to deliver their ACM projects. MoDOT noted that although they use decentralized structure, they have one dedicated full-time staff working on the ACM program. The results of case examples presented in Chapter 4 will discuss the staffing issues for ACMs in these two state DOTs in detail. Figure 8 summarizes the use of organizational structure for each ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, and P3). It is noted that state DOTs appear to use a centralized structure more frequently for P3 than D-B and CM/GC projects. Figure 9 displays a map of state DOTs across the nation regarding the use of organizational structures to deliver ACM projects.

71% Combined Structure

72% 47% 21%

Centralized Structure

17% 47% D-B (n=37)

8% Decentralized Structure

CM/GC (n=18)

11%

P3 (n=15)

7% 0%

20%

40% 60% Frequency mentioned

80%

100%

Figure 8. Organizational structure for ACMs.




Figure 9. A map of organizational structure for ACMs.

A variety of organizational structures have been used successfully by DOTs to accommodate ACMs, including various combinations of centralized and decentralized project development and execution, as well as outsourcing project development and/or program management. The optimum ACM organizational structure depends on a DOT’s existing organizational structure, the number of ACM projects per year to be implemented, and the experience the DOT has in implementing ACMs. Typically, the organizational structure evolves as the DOT staff gains experience with ACMs. Independent of the organizational structure, two critical common elements are having an ACM champion and having staff trained who are familiar with ACMs. (CASE 2016)

The survey results also found that 19 out of 39 state DOTs (49%) reported that they have separate units for management of ACMs. For example, the Vermont DOT has a separate unit in its finance and administration division dedicated to ACM projects. GDOT has the Office of Innovative Delivery (OID) dedicated to managing innovative programs in transportation projects delivered through P3, D-B, and other alternative delivery methods. VDOT has the Alternative Project Delivery (APD) Division that is responsible for developing, advertising, and managing their D-B projects. VDOT also has the Office of Public-Private Partnerships (P3 Office) that is responsible for identifying, evaluating, developing, procuring, and delivering Virginia’s P3 transportation projects.

ACM Staff Experience Among the three primary delivery methods of ACMs, state DOTs have been using D-B longer (more experience) than CM/GC and P3. More than 63% (24 out of 38) state DOTs



Current Practices of Staffing for ACMs 27 100% D-B (n=38)

Frequency mentioned

80%

CM/GC (n=18)

63%

P3 (n=14)

60%

44% 36%

40%

24% 17% 14%

20% 0%

28%

29% 21%

13%

11%

0% 10

Time (years)

Figure 10. ACM implementation timeline.

have been using D-B for more than 10 years, while only 11% (2 out of 18) have been using CM/GC for more than 10 years and 29% (4 out of 14) have been using P3 for more than 10 years. None of 38 respondents have used D-B less than two years. Figure 10 shows the number of years that ACMs have been used in state DOTs. The survey results found that 32 out of 39 responding state DOTs (82%) reported that their staff have less than 15 average years of experience in ACMs. Only seven state DOTs (18%) have staff with more than 15 average years of experience in ACMs, but 23 state DOTs (62%) have staff with more than 15 average years of experience in general transportation construction (e.g., construction administration, estimating, and scheduling). None of the state DOTs have staff with more than 25 years of experience in ACMs on average. Figure 11 compares the staff average years of experience between ACMs and general transportation construction.

100% 82% General Construction Experience (n = 37)

Frequency mentioned

80% 59%

60% 40%

ACM Experience (n = 39)

38% 18%

20%

3% 0%

< 15

15 to 25 Years

0% > 25

Figure 11. Average years of staff experience.




ACM Staffing Needs and Strategies The survey respondents were asked to answer whether their agencies have any strategic approaches to staffing needs for implementing ACMs. Out of 39 survey responses provided, 13 state DOTs (33%) reported that they have a strategic approach to ACM staffing (Figure 12). For example, the Indiana DOT uses a risk-based method of staffing for the various work items of D-B projects. The risk-based inspection protocol the Indiana DOT uses includes a list of pay items that are used to estimate inspection staff. CTDOT has started the process of forming an ACM group that will act as subject-matter experts and assist the members of the Design and Construction Units to deliver ACM projects. The Oregon DOT noted that they have a limited number of permanent staff with the required experience and expertise and therefore utilize outsourcing for program and project development and delivery on an as-needed basis. Some strategic approaches to ACM staffing from agencies with mature ACM programs are discussed briefly as follows: The Utah DOT noted that staffing of ACMs is typically a combination of internal and external resources. Program management staff is typically outsourced, but project management staff (e.g., the Project Manager) is typically internal. Quality management staff is mostly outsourced, although some projects are internally done. Overall oversight of the ACM process is handled from a centralized group. The region where the project is located determines the staffing strategy. The North Carolina DOT highlighted that they have a specialized multidisciplinary group of about 12–15 engineers that handle all procurements, ATCs, and design reviews for all best value D-B projects. They have another small group of staff that is dedicated to procurement and design reviews for low-bid D-B, which is referred to as the Express Design–Build Program. This specialized multidisciplinary group is handling the procurement and design reviews for their first implemented P3 project. This group also would handle piloting other ACM projects. The specialized multidisciplinary group serves as an incubator for ACMs. MoDOT explained their strategic approach as follows. For D-B projects, some specific authority of the Chief Engineer is granted to the Project Director. The Project Director acts as the project decision maker to expedite the decision-making process and create trust with the industry (contractor has confidence when a decision is made by the Project Director and that decision is final). The Project Director also helps to develop one team with the contractor. The core project

33% Yes

67%

Figure 12. Strategic approach to ACM staffing (n = 39).


No



team often includes five to 10 individuals that participate in the development of procurement documents, selection of the D-B contractor, and oversight of the work. Team members represent the disciplines that are important to the project. To the extent possible, it is important for project team members to locate together and meet at least weekly to manage the delivery of the project. MoDOT’s project teams for ACMs must hold the following core values: (1) goal oriented, (2) flexible, (3) confidential, and (4) empowered. GDOT noted that the main responsibility of their ACM unit is an advisory role for suitability, procurement, technical concept development, procurement design/execution, and overall project management. Consultant services can be scaled up or down to augment staff and provide expertise when appropriate. GDOT also uses consultants to provide training and support to DOT staff to foster integration with department subject-matter experts. VDOT highlighted that they have two separate offices within the DOT: one for D-B and the other for P3. These central offices have staff highly qualified to develop, procure, and provide support to districts for implementation of ACM projects. VDOT also has a wide variety of professional and nonprofessional consultants available for 5-year periods for “horsepower” on projects needing documentation or technical and financial analyses. The survey respondents were asked to indicate the role of various staff in the typical phases of ACM projects. Table 4 summarizes the results of this question. The staff in the central office were found to be mostly involved in the procurement phase (92%) followed by the scoping phase (66%), and then the environmental phase (57%), while least involved in the construction phase (24%). The staff in district offices were found to be almost equally involved in all phases of ACM projects except for the procurement phase (29%). The staff in the project office were found to be heavily involved in the construction phase (59%) and the project closeout phase (61%). Table 4 also indicates that the consultant staff are typically involved in the design phase (73%), construction phase (57%), and environmental phase (51%). Consultants are less involved in the scoping, procurement, and closeout phase of ACM projects. To compare the staffing needs between ACM and traditional D-B-B projects, state DOTs were asked to rate the overall staffing requirement for D-B-B versus each primary ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, and P3). One can observe from Figure 13 that 26 out of 36 state DOTs (72%) believe that D-B has less staff or no difference in comparison with D-B-B. Only 7 out of 36 state DOTs (16%) believe that D-B would need more staff than D-B-B. For CM/GC, most state DOTs (15 out of 17 or 88%) believe that CM/GC has no difference or needs more staff than D-B-B. For P3, the trend in staffing needs is not clear. Eight out of 19 state DOTs (42%) believe that P3 projects would need less staff than D-B-B projects; five out of 19 state DOTs (28%) believe that P3 would have no difference or need more staff than D-B-B; and six state DOTs out of 19 (32%) stated that they do not know if a difference exists.

Table 4. ACM staffing needs across project development phases (n = 37). Phases Scoping Environment Procurement Design Construction Closeout

Central Office Agency Staff 65.7% 56.7% 92.0% 48.6% 24.4% 36.8%

District Office Agency Staff 47.3% 40.6% 28.9% 46.2% 51.5% 55.3%

Project Office Agency Staff 26.4% 16.3% 28.9% 37.8% 59.4% 60.5%

Consultant Staff 31.6% 51.4% 34.2% 73.0% 56.8% 36.8%



30 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods 100% D-B (n=36)

Frequency mentioned

80%

CM/GC (n=17) P3 (n=19)

60%

40%

42%

39%

33% 19%

20%

0%

47%

41%

32%

16% 11%

8%

12%

0% Less Staff

More Staff

No Difference

Don't Know

Figure 13. ACM vs. D-B-B staff requirements.

When delivering ACM projects under the circumstance of staff shortfall due to workload peaks, the use of consultants is the most common strategy, with a response of 92% (35 out of 38). In addition, 23 out of 38 state DOTs (60%) reported that they place existing staff on overtime, and 22 out of 38 state DOTs (58%) temporarily assign staff from other business units to deliver ACMs. Figure 14 summarizes the typical strategies that state DOTs use to address staff shortfalls in delivering ACM projects.

ACM Staffing at Project Closeout The survey results indicated that most state DOTs believe that there is no difference in staffing needs during the project closeout phase between ACM and traditional D-B-B projects. Specifically, Figure 15 shows that 21 out of 37 state DOTs (57%) reported no difference; 9 state DOTs (24%) believe that ACM requires less staff during the project closeout phase than D-B-B; however, 5 state DOTs (14%) believe that ACM requires more staff during the project closeout phase than D-B-B.

Outsource to Consultant Staff

92%

Place Existing Staff on Overtime

60%

Temporary Reassignments of Staff from Other Business Units

58%

Hire Additional Staff

21%

Use Risk-based/Statistical Inspection Methods Assign Non-Construction Personnel to Construction Duties

18% 8%

Reduce Inspection Requirements

3%

Other

3% 0%

20%

40%

60%

Frequency mentioned

Figure 14. Strategies to address staff shortfall in ACMs (n = 38).


80%

100%


Current Practices of Staffing for ACMs 31 100%

Frequency mentioned

80% 57%

60% 40% 24% 20%

14% 5%

0% Less Staff

More Staff

No Difference

Don't know

Figure 15. ACM vs. D-B-B project close-out staff requirements (n = 37).

The respondents were asked to explain the staffing issues related to the closeout phase of ACM projects. The typical findings are summarized as follows: • The California, Maine, Idaho, Michigan, North Carolina, and Utah DOTs noted that while

the process of closing out ACM and D-B-B projects is different, they have not experienced any particular staffing issues with ACM projects. • The Connecticut, Florida, and South Carolina DOTs indicated that the closing-out activities of ACM and D-B-B projects are similar. The main staffing issues for ACM projects involve transferring warranties to appropriate parties (e.g., subcontractors) and receipt of accurate and timely as-built drawings from the contractors/D-B teams. The Ohio DOT noted that additional staff is needed for verifying as-built drawings, material certifications, and Dis advantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) monitoring. • MoDOT noted that the closeout phase was a challenge for their first 10 projects because of their project partners and staff leaving for other jobs. Their current approach to the ACM project closeout phase is to have two or three key staff from the agency working with their partner. VDOT also has knowledgeable staff working the project closeout phase for ACMs. The Oregon DOT uses consultants due to legislative staffing level constraints. • GDOT highlighted that understanding of the project’s unique Quality Management Plan is important for ACM projects. It is essential for staff to have strong sense of what is fair between the contracting entity and actual contract terms. Good judgment is needed at ACM project closeout because contract language is generally customized and, as such, can be ambiguous.

ACM Staff Skill Sets To determine the skill sets that are critical to the success of implementing ACMs, state DOT representatives were asked to identify five out of 25 knowledge domain and skill sets based on their own experience and knowledge. Tables 5, 6, and 7 summarize the top 10 knowledge domain and skill sets that are critical to successful implementation of D-B, CM/GC, and P3, respectively. One can observe from Tables 5, 6, and 7 that the six knowledge domain and skill sets that are critical across all three main delivery methods of ACMs are: • Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff, • Risk identification and analysis skills,




Table 5. Top 10 staffing skill sets for D-B. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Knowledge and Skill Sets Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff Risk identification and analysis skills Strong partnering and team-building skills Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure Knowledge of construction contract administration Knowledge of highway materials and construction means and methods Understanding of project management principles Knowledge of quality assurance principles for ACMs Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing Excellent written and oral communication skills

Frequency n = 24 100% 96% 83% 75% 63% 46% 42% 38% 25% 25%

Table 6. Top 10 staffing skill sets for CM/GC. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Knowledge and Skill Sets Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff Risk identification and analysis skills Strong partnering and team-building skills Knowledge of construction contract administration Understanding of project management principles Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing Knowled ge of change management Strong background in the preconstruction process and planning Excellent written and oral communication skills

Frequency n = 13 100% 100% 77% 46% 38% 38% 31% 23% 23% 43%

Table 7. Top 10 staffing skill sets for P3. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Knowledge and Skill Sets Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff Risk identification and analysis skills Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure Knowledge of construction contract administration Strong partnering and team-building skills Knowledge of quality assurance principles for ACMs Knowledge of finance, accounting, and cost management Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing Understanding of federal and state environmental approvals Familiar with federal transportation project finance structuring

Frequency n = 10 100% 90% 80% 70% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20%



Current Practices of Staffing for ACMs 33 Table 8. Typical “soft” skills for ACM implementation (n = 34). "Soft" Skills 1 0

Strong commitment to successful outcomes Accountability and trust Innovative problem solving attitude Flexibility and open to new concepts Responsible and reflective Diverse backgrounds

• • • •

0 0 0 0 2

Scale Measure 2 3 4 5 0 0 12 22 0 1 0 2 6

0 1 3 9 16

13 14 13 14 7

Weighted Average

Rank

4.6

1

4.6 4.4 4.4 3.9 3.1

1 2 2 3 4

21 18 18 9 3

Strong partnering and team-building skills, Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure, Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing, and Knowledge of construction contract administration.

In addition to the knowledge and skill sets essential for the implementation of ACMs, state DOTs were asked to identify and rank the “soft” skills relative to the success of ACM projects. The ranking scale varied from 1 through 5: 1 = Not Important; 2 = Slightly Important; 3 = Important; 4 = Very Important; and 5 = Extremely Important. Table 8 shows the results of the responses from the 34 state DOT representatives. Table 8 shows that the “strong commitment to successful outcomes” tied with “accountability and trust” skills are ranked first; the “innovative problem solving attitude” tied with “flexibility and open to new concepts” skills are ranked second. The “responsible and reflective” and “diverse background” skills are ranked third and fourth, respectively.

Use of Consultants for ACMs The survey result found that almost all state DOTs utilize consultants to implement their ACMs. Figure 16 indicates that 89% of 38 state DOTs that responded to this question have used consultants for D-B; 79% of 14 responding state DOTs have used consultants for CM/GC; and 94% of 16 responding state DOTs have used consultants for their P3 projects. As many state DOTs rely upon consultants to develop and manage ACM project activities or to cope up with staffing shortfalls, the respondents were asked whether their agencies have

11% No

D-B (n=38) CM/GC (n=14)

21%

P3 (n=16)

6%

89% Yes

79% 94% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Frequency mentioned

Figure 16. Use of consultants for ACMs.




No

64%

Yes

21%

Don't Know

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Frequency mentioned

Figure 17. Legal constraints on outsourcing (n = 39).

legal constraints placed on outsourcing of services. As Figure 17 summarizes, most state DOTs (25 out of 39 or 64%) reported that there are no legal constraints placed on the outsourcing of services for which they have the capacity to perform in-house. Figure 17 shows that eight state DOTs (21%) indicated that they have legal constraints on outsourcing. For example, MoDOT noted that they are required to perform a fiscal review and demonstrate the inadequate internal resources prior to any external contract. To use consultants for ACM services, the review also must show that performing the service with in-house staff is not feasible or less cost effective than outsourcing the service. The Massachusetts DOT pointed out that their Collective Bargaining Agreement requires the state agency to demonstrate that expertise is not available in-house before outsourcing services. Similarly, Caltrans echoed that some work cannot be outsourced unless it can be shown that there are inadequate resources available within the civil service. The North Carolina DOT reported that a certain amount of preconstruction planning and design work must be outsourced as mandated by current law. However, the calculation of this amount is complex and varies project by project. The survey results presented in Figure 18 indicated that the two main factors that state DOTs consider in making the outsourcing decision involve the lack of in-house staff availability (94%)

Cost Savings

12%

Lack of Qualifications of In-House Staff

74%

Lack of Availability of In-House Staff

94%

Others

21% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Frequency mentioned

Figure 18. Factors influencing ACM outsourcing decision (n = 34).


100%



Preliminary Engineering Design

88%

RFP/RFQ and Contract Development

85%

Environmental Reviews and Document Preparation

68%

Project Management in Construction

56%

Technical Proposal Assessment

50%

Project Management in Procurement

44%

Developing ACM Practices and Documents

44%

Providing ACM Training to Agency Staff

33%

ACM Assessment and Selection

24%

Other

18% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Frequency mentioned

Figure 19. Outsourcing activities in ACMs (n = 34).

and the lack of in-house staff qualification (74%). Only 4 stated DOTs (12%) reported the cost saving of using consultants in ACM projects. Additionally, some state DOTs noted they have used consultants for different reasons. For example, the North Carolina DOT pointed out that they use consultants to assist on commercial and legal items on their P3 projects and General Engineering Consultants (GECs) to assist as needed for D-B projects. MoDOT mentioned they utilize consultants to support specific disciplines that are needed (survey, utilities, and traffic) for D-B projects. GDOT indicated that the magnitude of their ACM program is increasing, whereas experienced in-house staffing level is decreasing. Thus, in order to provide expected responsiveness with scalable resources, GDOT uses consultants when necessary. Figure 19 summarizes the typical outsourcing activities in ACM projects. The top three activities that consultants do to help agencies staff ACM projects include (1) preliminary engineering design, (2) development of RFQ/RFP and contract document, and (3) environmental reviews and document preparation. Among these typical activities presented in Figure 19, some state DOTs noted that they use consultants for other activities. For example, North Carolina indicated that consultants typically serve as supplemental staff for D-B projects and as commercial and legal advisors for P3 projects. Among other activities, GDOT uses consultants in ACMs for specialized estimating, cost forecasting, and strategic project planning.

ACM Staff Training Training is a key programmatic tool to transfer knowledge, lessons learned, and essential skills to DOT staff for implementation of ACMs. Out of 39 valid responses, 27 state DOTs (69%) reported that they provide ACM training for their staff. In addition to project-specific training, state DOTs often provide agency-wide training on ACMs to their staff. Figure 20 shows typical types of training related to ACMs.




Project-Specific Training for Some Projects

51.80%

Agency-Wide Training

44.40%

Project-Specific Training for Every Project

37%

Others 0%

22.20% 20%

40% 60% 80% Frequency mentioned

100%

Figure 20. Types of ACM training (n = 27).

Some state DOTs use other approaches to ACM training. For example, GDOT uses their alternative contracting in-house staff to conduct one- or two-hour workshops to train other offices in fostering acceptance of ACMs. The training often involves select individuals who have successfully managed ACM projects to promote broader ACM “buy-in” and to focus mission activities for the ACM Unit. Additionally, the AHTD highlighted: Each individual assigned to the procurement, evaluation, or monitoring during the Procurement Process should be required to attend training. . . . The training should educate individuals on their respective roles and responsibilities as developers and evaluators and review procedures for each phase of the D-B Procurement. . . . The Department should develop a training curriculum that is available to all individuals prior to their involvement in the Procurement Process, preferably prior to the issuance of the RFQ. . . . As part of the training, the primary risk elements should be discussed as well as how the Procurement Team has allocated and attempted to mitigate the Project risks, which will be important to fully understand during the evaluation of the SOQ and Proposals. (AHTD 2015)

CTDOT mentioned that they developed ACM programs and provided training to certain general groups as well as all design and construction units working on ACM projects. Junior staff working ACM projects in CTDOT are encouraged to access all available training to both build in-house capabilities and promote organizational culture change. CASE (2016) found conducting joint training plays an important role in the development of ACM programs in Connecticut. Training creates a “neutral environment” where both internal staff and industry members can voice their concerns in a setting where there is no turf to defend and no perceived consequences for speaking out against the proposed changes. (CASE 2016)

State DOTs with mature ACMs have typically instituted some type of formal training program. For example, the Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia DOTs have developed D-B training modules that address project development, procurement and contracts, and post-award contract administration. Similarly, the Florida DOT conducts training for district and project engineers on specific D-B topics each year through their D-B Task Force. Some state DOTs noted that they have used peer-to-peer information exchanges (e.g., participation in FHWA, DBIA, or AASHTO forums) as a training process to promote ACMs. Scott et al. (2016) highlighted that it would be helpful to develop a formal training program on fundamental ACM principles affecting procurement, contracting, and project execution. It is important to develop a training program that is not generic, but specific to how ACM projects are developed and delivered to articulate and reinforce the DOT’s current policies and procedures.




Quality Management Staff for ACMs The Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Title 23, CFR, Part 637 requires state highway agencies to establish a Quality Assurance (QA) Program. For D-B projects, the CFR includes three additional provisions to the QA program as follows: • Reliance on a combination of contract provisions and acceptance methods; • Reliance on quality control (QC) sampling and testing as part of the acceptance decision,

provided that adequate verification of the design–builder’s QC sampling and testing is performed to ensure that the design–builder is providing the quality of materials and construction required by the contract documents; and • Contractual provisions that require the operation of the completed facility for a specific time period. The final report of NCHRP 20-07/Task 349, “Guidelines for Developing Materials Acceptance Plans for Alternative Contracting Methods,” found that although current materials acceptance practices for ACMs vary widely from state to state, greater responsibility and control for quality management and materials performance is often shifted to industry (Jones et al. 2016). Table 9 summarizes the results of the survey regarding quality management staff for ACM projects. One can observe from Table 9 that agency staff are primarily involved in most of the QC and QA tasks in ACM projects. Two tasks that agency staff are less involved in are the quality control testing and establishment of horizontal and vertical control. More than 50% of 36 DOT respondents reported that the agency’s consultant staff typically involve the following QC and QA tasks: • • • • •

Technical review of construction shop drawings, Report of nonconforming work or punch list, Checking of pay quantities, Routine construction inspection, and Approval of construction post-award QA/QC.

Table 9. Quality management staff for ACMs (n = 36). QA/QC Tasks Approval of construction post-award QA/QC Testing verification Independent assurance testing/inspection Approval of progress payments for construction progress Technical review of construction shop drawings Technical review of construction material submittals Report of nonconforming work or punch list Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection QC testing Establishment of horizontal and vertical control

Agency Staff 94.4%

Designer's Consultant Staff 8.3%

Contractor's Construction Staff 11.1%

Contractor's Consultant Staff 94.4%

Agency's Consultant Staff 50%

72.2%

2.7%

22.2%

27.7%

47.2%

88.9%

0%

2.8%

19.4%

38.8%

97.2%

2.8%

2.8%

94.4%

36.1%

78.4%

46%

35.1%

51.4%

56.8%

86.5%

10.8%

37.8%

43.2%

46%

83.4%

13.9%

36.1%

38.9%

58.3%

88.9%

2.8%

38.8%

19.4%

55.5%

83.4%

2.8%

41.7%

33.3%

63.9%

43.24%

0%

65%

54%

32.4%

33.4%

11.1%

83%

55.6%

19.4%




Similarly, more than 50% of 36 DOT respondents reported that a contractor or contractor’s consultant staff typically perform the following QC and QA tasks in ACM projects: • • • •

Approval of construction post-award QA/QC, Technical review of construction shop drawings, QC testing, and Establishment of horizontal and vertical control.

Table 9 also indicates that the contractor or contractor’s consultant staff are often involved in the QC and QA tasks listed below (approximately 40%): • • • •

Technical review of construction material submittals, Report of nonconforming work or punch list, Checking of pay quantities, and Routine construction inspection.

ACM Staffing Issues and Lessons Learned The survey aimed at seeking information on unique staffing issues and lessons learned on the implementation of ACMs. The typical staffing practices and issues associated with each primary ACM (i.e., D-B, CM/GC, and P3) are synthesized as follows: The typical staffing practices and issues provided by DOT survey participants pertaining to D-B are as follows: • Having self-motivated and goal-oriented staff, less dependent on the D-B process but more

dependent on how to achieve primary goals of a project, is important for D-B. • Additional staff time is required during the procurement phase (e.g., developing RFQ/RFP,

• • • • •

•

contract documents, and evaluation and selection processes). However, it is difficult to have staff ready when submittals/proposals come in. This often requires dedicating specific staff for the submittals/proposals. It is challenging to find staff that have both a strong technical background and excel in the art of procurement documents. Not everyone is the right fit for D-B. The rapid pace in D-B can result in personnel “burnout.” The specific mindset for D-B is not easily transferred between D-B-B and D-B cultures. Exceptional team players are required. Experienced project manager and construction resident engineer personnel are required, and it can be problematic if experienced staff has left the agency. Staff needs to be able to work with subject-matter experts within the agency not only to get prompt responses to submittals, but also to foster relationships within the agency on the D-B fundamentals that help open channels for innovation in regular programs and current/future D-B programs. Training is important because specialized skill sets and innovative thinking have not frequently been taught in engineering programs or other related transportation professions.

The typical staffing practices and issues provided by DOT survey participants pertaining to CM/GC are as follows: • Preconstruction phase staffing is key to success. Construction staff needs to take part in the

preconstruction phase. Need staff that understand how contractors bid/price/schedule jobs during the negotiation of GMP. • While the number of staff may remain the same, the number of working hours for each staff is typically higher due to the interactions with the CM. • Need staff who understand bottom-up cost estimating for an effective cost reconciliation process.



Current Practices of Staffing for ACMs 39 • Need an excellent Project Manager who is able to manage the designer and contractor

(e.g., holding the CM/GC responsible for suggestions that are made throughout the design phase). • Need staff with certain skill sets for CM/GC including estimating final construction cost. • Additional staff time required for developing procurement and contract documents. The typical staffing practices and issues provided by DOT survey participants pertaining to P3 are as follows: • Need staff with the ability to manage consultants and understand project risk profile. • Staff are often required to preserve proper decorum in engaging private partners at various

stages of procurement and contract execution. • P3 may be highly expensive to pursue, so the agency needs to have empowered high-level

individuals to provide thoughtful answers to proposers’ ideas without jeopardizing integrity of procurement, undermining of agency concerns, or creating poor perception of agency engagement on innovative ideas. • Several state DOTs noted that most of staffing issues in D-B would apply to P3, but they have not yet reached to the D-B level of experience. The typical lessons learned on ACM staffing practices are summarized as follows: • The key is to identify qualified staff: strong and experienced project personnel is needed for

• •

•

•

•

•

• •

ACM projects. They have to have the ability to think outside the D-B-B world and understand the differences between the various methods. ACM is usually a foreign concept, and some can be resistant to change. Staff must have the ability to make decisions for the good of the project rather than be legalistic. Having staff with flexible and responsive skill sets to the fast pace is essential for ACMs. Dedicated staff to facilitate the ACM process is critical. Staff have the ability to foster partnerships and discourage adversarial relationships, promote paradigm shift toward beneficial concepts, and be decisive and calm amid enormous pressure and expectations. Respect for others’ perspectives is important. Creating the change that is needed to be successful is a key success trait. It is important to have parties involved with the project to be on board at the very start and follow the project throughout the procurement. The staff needs to remain open to the contracting process and able to keep personal preferences out of the contract. The Project Manager is key through all phases of ACM projects. It can be a challenge to attract individuals to a high-paced, intensive, and a unique work environment that ACMs introduce. In addition, the ACM program must be mature enough to ensure that there is always ample workload to keep these experienced and qualified staff interested. Having a dedicated project team with leadership experience complementary of each other is critical to the success of ACMs. For example, the team can include the Project Director and the Deputy Project Director having different disciplines (construction and design). This team also has support staff of Project Engineers (generally 3–5) dedicated to the project. Having staff with the knowledge and background to understand the contract quality management plan, roles, and responsibilities with material testing is important for ACM projects. ACMs often require the same number of field staff as to similarly sized D-B-B projects. It is important to have available qualified staff to appropriately manage consultants in ACMs. Training plays a pivotal role in the implementation of ACMs. Training programs that are specifically designed to articulate and reinforce the department’s current policies and procedures on ACMs prove successful.




Summary This chapter describes the current practices of ACM staffing through the analyzing responses of 46 DOTs to the national survey distributed to 50 state DOTs. The chapter first presents general findings on the use of ACMs, such as ACM state authority, the use of procurement methods in conjunction with three main ACM methods, and the volume of ACM projects in the construction program. Next, the chapter discusses the survey results of staffing issues and needs for ACMs in detail. This includes the use of organizational structures for ACMs, staff experience and training, ACM staffing needs and strategies, use of consultants for ACMs, and quality management staff for ACMs. Finally, the chapter explains unique staffing issues related to implementing each primary ACM, including D-B, CM/GC, and P3. Key lessons learned on ACM staffing practices are synthesized at the conclusion of this chapter.



CHAPTER 4

Case Examples of Staffing for ACMs Introduction This chapter builds on the findings from the literature review and the survey of the current practice in ACM staffing presented in the previous chapters. The main objective of this chapter is to document the case examples and practices related to staffing issues and needs from the transportation agencies that have experience in delivering ACM projects and programs. After explaining the selection of agencies for the case examples, this chapter provides readers with details to understand how DOTs develop and prepare for staffing levels to deliver their ACM projects.

Selection of Case Examples The data from the national survey and literature review were used to select the state DOTs appropriate for further study. The research team used the following selection criteria: • • • • •

Types of organizational structure; Years of experience with ACMs, including D-B, CM/GC, and P3; Number of ACM projects delivered; Comprehensiveness and availability of ACM documents; and Willingness of agency personnel to participate in the study, as determined by the survey responses.

Based on these criteria, the research team initially selected 11 DOTs across the U.S. as case example candidates for this study. The research team solicited each DOT in person, by phone, and e-mail to inquire about participation in a case example regarding ACM staffing practices. Participation involved conducting a structured interview with a detailed questionnaire provided in advance, collecting ACM documents related to staffing practices, and reviewing the final analysis for accuracy. As presented in Chapter 3, most state DOTs use a combined organizational structure to deliver their ACM projects. The research team intended to include different types of DOT organizational structure (centralized, decentralized, and combined) in the case examples. As a result, the following eight DOTs were finally selected and agreed to participate in this study: California, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. Table 10 summarizes these eight agency case examples along with the organizational structure and ACM available for delivering transportation projects. The following sections present the details of each case example. A structured interview protocol was used during discussions and data collection. Each DOT was interviewed using the same list of questions. The general categories for the questions are as follows: • General information and ACMs, • Organizational structure,



42 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods Table 10. Summary of agency case examples. State DOT

ACMs Available

Organizational Structure

California

D-B, CM/GC, P3

Combined

Florida

D-B, CM/GC, P3

Decentralized

Georgia

D-B, P3

Centralized

D-B, CM/GC

Combined

D-B, ATCs

Decentralized

North Carolina

D-B, P3

Centralized

Ohio

D-B, P3

Combined

Virginia

D-B, P3

Combined

Minnesota Missouri

• ACM staffing issues and needs, • ACM skill sets and training, and • Lessons learned.

Appendix C provides the complete list of protocol questions. This chapter presents the findings in the same general order as the protocol for each case example.

California Department of Transportation General Information and ACMs The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for maintaining 50,000 lane-miles of highway and roadways, including 24,000 bridges. Caltrans has more than 18,500 employees in its 12 districts and the Caltrans headquarters. With respect to staffing ACM project delivery, Caltrans’s distinguishing feature is its unionized professional engineering workforce and its history of performing nearly all design services using internal design assets. That characteristic prevented Caltrans from gaining the legislative authority to employ ACMs until 2009, when it gained enabling legislation for a D-B “demonstration” program and an unlimited number of P3 projects. It received authorization to use CM/GC in 2012. Currently, the legislative authority for P3 expired in January 2017 and is under consideration for reauthorization in the current legislative session. Lastly, the ability to cover personnel resource shortfalls by outsourcing work to private industry is severely constrained for Caltrans by statute. It is noted that the architectural and engineering (A&E) resources are constrained by the annual budget. Generally, Caltrans receives 10% out of the full-time equivalents (FTEs) as consultant resources. The state constitution limits the ability to contract out services typically provided by civil servants unless Caltrans can demonstrate that the resources are not available in state services or the work is specialized. Given the above discussion, implementing ACMs in California has been an extremely politicized process. However, Caltrans has persevered and, to their great credit, now possesses one of the nation’s most complete sets of internal ACM implementation policy and procedure documentation, as well as one of the nation’s most rigorous ACM project performance measurement systems. An example is the department’s development of an ACM called “design sequencing” (DS), which is a means to accelerate project delivery using D-B-B and in-house design. This approach is a hybrid of the delivery method known as D-B-B Multi-Prime (Dongo et al. 2014). Caltrans initiated its DS project performance program while simultaneously measuring the performance of a parallel set of similar D-B-B “shadow” projects. The result is a nearly perfect



Case Examples of Staffing for ACMs 43

“apples to apples” comparison of the impact of the new ACM. The outcome was that the department was able to make substantive recommendations regarding the value for money achieved by ACMs, providing factual information to its legislative initiative to expand its procurement toolbox by adding D-B, CM/GC, and P3. It is noted that the agency conducting a similar analysis on the 10 D-B demonstration program projects. The program is nearing completion, and the Caltrans interviewee indicated that when most of the D-B projects are closed out that the analysis will be undertaken.

Organizational Structure Caltrans is one of the largest state DOTs in the U.S. and operates with a combined organization structure consisting of 12 geographical areas called districts that have decision-making power for design, communications, and public engagement. California is also divided into 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). Caltrans must interface with these public agency stakeholders on a continuous basis on virtually all of its projects and often acts as the construction agent for MPOs and RTPAs for projects that are funded using local sources. Hence, its combined structure provides a means for keeping local public entities involved and satisfying the need to collaborate regarding the integration of local transportation objectives into the statewide program. It also creates a local base of institutional knowledge from which to address environmental issues, another contentious political issue affecting project delivery in California.

Staffing Issues and Needs Each district within Caltrans functions as a self-contained unit of government, providing transportation engineering, construction, operations, and maintenance services within its assigned geographical area. Each ACM project has a designated ACM liaison for facilitating the development of the project. The Caltrans Headquarters (HQ) Division of Design includes the Office of Innovative Design and Delivery (OIDD), whose role is to furnish the necessary expertise and guidance to district ACM project development teams (PDTs), ensuring statewide continuity of ACM practices, procedures, and performance measurement. OIDD is staffed as follows: • Office Chief, • Three innovative contracting engineers, and • One value analysis engineer.

The Caltrans ACM project selection process starts at the district where projects are submitted to OIDD as part of a formal nominating process. OIDD personnel then evaluate the pool of nominated projects and prepare a justification document for each project, which is then presented to an HQ Innovative Contracting Steering Committee that has the authority to approve ACM delivery. Once the projects are approved, they are returned to OIDD for procurement. OIDD works with the district to complete the procurement. Once procured, OIDD turns the project back to each district. The district’s PDT, which may include MPO/RTPA personnel, then delivers the project with OIDD innovative contracting engineers providing assistance and oversight as required.

ACM Skill sets and Training Caltrans has found that PDTs must be carefully staffed with people that are open to changing the way projects are routinely delivered. The major hurdle in D-B has been the transition from in-house design to oversight of the design–builder’s design consultant team. This culture shift was made marginally easier by the D-B ATC process. Skeptical Caltrans design personnel were




impressed with the creativity and innovation displayed in the many ATCs proffered during the D-B demonstration program, which were eventually credited with reducing the cost of the program by nearly 17%. Caltrans attempts to staff ACM projects with engineers that have excellent people skills as well as an understanding of changes in project management procedures found on their ACM projects. Caltrans does not hire outside consultants to augment their ACM PDTs. Before implementing the D-B demonstration program, Caltrans invested in an extensive D-B training program provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers in the following topics: • Pre-award D-B (16 hours):

–– Planning, –– Preliminary engineering, –– RFQ and RFP development, –– Proposal evaluation, –– ATCs, and –– Procurement and award. • Post-award D-B (16 hours): –– Partnering, –– Design administration, –– Construction administration, and –– Quality assurance. • Executive-level DB (4 hours): –– Caltrans D-B policy and procedures, –– Upper management roles and responsibilities, and –– Overview of D-B project performance measurement plan. The pre-award and post-award training was provided to Caltrans project teams and other technical and legal staff, as well as MPO/RTPA personnel for each of the 10 D-B demonstration projects. The primary value of this extensive training program was that it prepared management and staff for a different delivery method. In addition, training has prepared staff for the mind shift necessary to work on a D-B project as well as just understanding the delivery mechanism. The Caltrans interviewee indicated that there was some benefit in regard to standardization, but this was a minor benefit as they did not obtain the expected level of standardization. Caltrans is now developing a D-B guidance document to help obtain the standardization. An abbreviated version of the training was provided to Caltrans’ first CM/GC PDT by the Iowa State University research team as part of the NCHRP Project 10-85 AASHTO CM/GC Guidelines vetting process and was judged to be equally valuable. It must be noted that Caltrans implements CM/GC with in-house design personnel, who must now coordinate with the CM/GC contractor during the design phase.

Lessons Learned While relatively new to the ACM arena, Caltrans uses a combined organizational structure to deliver D-B, CM/GC, and P3 transportation projects as well as to employ ATCs on D-B and P3. Caltrans’s recent experience resulted in the following lessons learned in staffing for ACM projects, summarized as follows: • DOT personnel cannot be expected to successfully implement new project delivery methods

without sufficient training and a baseline understanding of how the process will be altered from that found on traditional D-B-B projects. • The Caltrans model of central ACM project planning and decentralized project execution provides for a standardized process that can then be tailored to meet the specific needs of a given project’s geography and local context.




Figure 21. San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge Marine Foundation Removal CM/GC Project using underwater explosive implosion.

• Caltrans has found implementing CM/GC using in-house design assets to be a very effective

method for providing early contractor involvement to achieve highly constructible designs. The recent San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge Marine Foundation Removal CM/GC project (Figure 21), which involved underwater demolition of a huge pier, was cited as being particularly successful in providing the Caltrans design staff with the means, methods, and technical constraints for this highly specialized endeavor.

Florida Department of Transportation General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining 122,659 miles of highway and roadways, including 12,262 bridges. FDOT has more than 5,800 employees throughout the seven districts, the Florida Turnpike Enterprise (FTE, or sometimes referred to as District 8), and the FDOT headquarters. FDOT was one of the first state DOTs to adopt Design–Build (D-B) to deliver transportation projects and began its first D-B project in 2000. Since that time, FDOT has completed over 470 D-B projects all across the state. In addition to using D-B and traditional contracting methods, FDOT has the authority to use Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) and Public-Private Partnerships (P3), though it has implemented fewer CM/GC and P3 projects compared to D-B. Currently, FDOT has 13 P3 projects completed or in the maintenance and operations phase, two P3 projects currently under construction, and one P3 project in procurement. For CM/GC, FDOT has used this delivery method for several transportation projects when early contractor involvement was needed, such as the Atlantic Boulevard and SR5 Bascule Bridges projects in Broward County and the Sanibel Island bridges project east of Fort Myers (Figure 22). A main driver for FDOT to use ACMs in lieu of a traditional D-B-B method is the timing and ability to capture funding. Specifically, FDOT moves quickly as funding typically has restrictions on when it is spent. When this happens, ACMs are the options for projects that are plan ready, but funding is not available. In addition, FDOT is flexible in determining the appropriate delivery method for a project. FDOT strives to determine the project delivery method as early as the beginning of the planning phase. However, the delivery decision can be changed as the project progresses based on project complexities, risk exposure for the department, funding, and feedback from industry partners (contractors and consultants).




Figure 22. Sanibel Island bridges project.

Organizational Structure FDOT is one of the largest state DOTs in the U.S. and operates as a decentralized organization, in which FDOT has seven geographical areas called districts along with the “District 8,” the FTE, that have decision-making power for design, communications, and public engagement. In addition, FDOT has designated 27 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). MPOs having a population of over 200,000 are designated as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). FDOT works with the MPOs to develop transportation improvement programs within each MPO area as well as to assist with developing the long-range transportation plan, which are then included in the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) that FDOT develops and updates regularly. However, MPOs within Florida do not handle the day-to-day management of transportation, as that is the responsibility of the associated FDOT districts. In general, FDOT’s decentralized structure allows for improvements in public involvement and satisfaction as well as a better ability to address local environmental and social issues. In discussion with personnel from District 4, FDOT’s central headquarters develops the policies and procedures that each district uses to guide their work. Although the district office would lead the procurement and management efforts for an ACM project, the headquarters works with the districts to create the request for proposal (RFP), develop the process for alternative technical concepts (ATCs), and address any other aspects of procurement related to using ACMs (e.g., qualifications, technical aspects, etc.). At the district level, the received proposals are reviewed using at least two employees from the production side and two employees from the operations side. For the construction phase of ACM projects, FDOT includes staff with specific expertise and the districts lead the efforts to build the project.

Staffing Issues and Needs With the decentralized organization structure, each district within FDOT operates as their own regional transportation agency that focuses on a specific geographical area of the state. In terms of ACM projects, none of the districts have a dedicated office for implementing D-B, P3, or CM/GC for a project. It is a common practice that FDOT staff are trained in different ACMs so they are allowed to grow and experience various methods of delivery for transportation projects. As a result, although there is no specific ACM office or division within a district, employees




are coached to be flexible and understand the process and procedure of using ACMs in addition to traditional D-B-B methods. As a typical setup, each ACM project team has a technical evaluation committee, the core support staff, and technical and project experts, all of which are FDOT employees or agency owner’s representative consultant employees. The technical committee is often composed of design project managers, construction project managers, and specialty personnel selected based on the type of job. For example, a Class 2 bridge structure was a major part of the scope of work for a project in District 2. For this particular D-B project, a structural bridge engineer was appointed to the technical committee because this area of expertise was needed for the project. The core support staff includes individuals from the district such as the district construction engineer, the district design engineer, the district materials/geotechnical engineer, and the district bridge/ structural engineer. The core group participates in the procurement process, all Q&A meetings and sessions, and the ATC process throughout the project for consistency. From a QA/QC perspective, FDOT noted that construction QA does not vary too much between traditional D-B-B and ACM projects. Specific rules and policies dictate materials testing rather than the delivery method. However, for design quality assurance, FDOT acknowledges that the design review process is an area that FDOT may not have enough staffing or resources for ACM projects, depending on workload. FDOT design and construction project managers and engineers may not have time to perform thorough design reviews. To address this issue, FDOT has supplemented staffing by using an owner’s representative consultant to assist and sometimes lead the design review process. Regarding the use of consultants in ACM projects, FDOT asserted that they utilize consultants to supplement staff that FDOT does not have for an ACM project. Typically, FDOT has an external owner’s representative firm that essentially becomes a part of FDOT for the project. As for construction engineering and inspections (CEI), FDOT commonly hires an external CEI firm, which is then required to work together with the owner’s representative consultant and the ACM construction team throughout the project. Using consultants allows FDOT to oversee the process and rely on the consultants to do the heavy lifting. During the procurement phase of an ACM project, FDOT noted that it is common that FDOT staff participate in many meetings and sessions, such as the interviews with D-B firms, Q&A sessions, and public outreach meetings. Additionally, if ATCs are used, then more meetings and reviews are needed. All of these meetings and sessions, along with daily responsibilities is time consuming for FDOT staff. As a result, work is often redistributed internally to meet the demands of ACM projects, which stretches FDOT’s human resources to the limit. Currently, FDOT tries to remedy this situation by embedding consultants to supplement the staff needed for the peaks in work for ACM projects. This strategy seems to work since many consultants FDOT uses are former FDOT employees who are familiar with the FDOT system. Another concerning trend with FDOT’s ACM staffing is losing experienced staff to private firms. It is common for the private sector in construction firms to offer significantly higher pay than government-instituted salaries. Thus, FDOT staff with lesser experience and knowledge find ample opportunities to work on and handle ACM projects. This situation puts additional pressure on the experienced FDOT project managers, engineers, and supervisors, as FDOT relies more on these individuals for the complex and high-risk ACM projects. Another aspect of this situation is that FDOT relies more on the owner’s representative consultant, as mentioned above.

ACM Skill Sets and Training Technical skills and relationship skills are key attributes that FDOT searches for when hiring personnel. FDOT ACM staff have leadership and communication skills along with a knowledge




and understanding of project management to work on ACM projects. For consultants, FDOT looks for skills that can support the efforts by the FDOT team. The FDOT representative noted that in addition to technical skills, it is essential for ACM projects to have staff with excellent communication and leadership skills. These skills will allow FDOT staff to interact appropriately with the many and various parties involved. However, FDOT realizes that not everyone has both technical and communication skills. In a situation where an FDOT individual is an expert in some aspect of a project but has subpar communication skills, FDOT will ensure that other individuals on the ACM team can work to communicate with the expert to relay the information to the rest of the team in an appropriate manner. No one person is responsible for an entire project; people with expertise on the project team complement each other. However, due to a lack of personnel and increases in the volume of ACM project work, FDOT may not be able to assemble a team of people that can complement each other efficiently. In these cases, FDOT relies on consultants to provide the needed skill sets. For the ACM training, some of the FDOT districts train staff by assigning them to an ACM team to go through the process before becoming an official member of the ACM team. As a training member, FDOT will assign a mentor to the trainee. This process allows FDOT personnel to experience an ACM project in real time prior to being an ACM technical evaluation team member. Additionally, FDOT offers computer-based training that FDOT staff have to complete in order to work on a D-B project. Along with the computer-based training, FDOT has often conducted annual D-B/P3 workshops with FDOT personnel and industry consultants and contractors. At the workshop, industry partners work with FDOT staff to discuss what is working and what needs improvement. The FDOT representatives mentioned that the workshops provide necessary skill sets for FDOT staff to manage ACM projects, and since the industry is ever changing, ongoing training such as the ACM workshop needs to be conducted on a regular basis. Furthermore, FDOT has developed a standing statewide task team for ACM projects, call the Alternative Contracting Task Team, which is composed of FDOT staff and construction industry professionals with extensive knowledge and experience with ACM projects. The Alternative Contracting Task Team meets several times throughout the year to discuss projects, lessons learned, and any other specific aspects of ACM projects such as incentives/disincentives, procurement changes, and quality management.

Lessons Learned FDOT has established itself as one of the decentralized state DOT organizations delivering transportation ACM (D-B, CM/GC, and P3) projects. Based on FDOT’s experience with ACMs, the main lessons learned in staffing for ACM projects are summarized as follows: • FDOT relies heavily on the construction industry (contractors and consultants) to design and

construct ACM projects. Specifically, FDOT works hard to establish and sustain relationships with its industry partners by keeping information open between FDOT and consultants and contractors, and by including the industry in training and outreach sessions for the use of ACMs. FDOT conducts an annual workshop with the industry to discuss the current situation of ACM projects. • Scope development is crucial for ACM projects because it determines the commitment that FDOT will make for the procurement process. The developed scope of work allows FDOT to begin considering who will be on the FDOT team for a project. When staff being considered for an ACM project are tied up with other responsibilities, FDOT management can move responsibilities around for staff that would meet the project needs while balancing their workload to promote professional development.



Case Examples of Staffing for ACMs 49 • Since the design of an ACM project typically is performed by a third-party entity, the role

of FDOT changes from developing the design to providing the commitments, parameters, constraints, and scope of the design so that the designer can capture what is required. FDOT learned that scope definition is vital to relay the expectations the department has for an ACM project. FDOT experimented with their specifications by varying the amount of prescriptive and performance specifications in the design and scope of the project so that the design and construction of an ACM project is performed to the level FDOT requires.

Georgia Department of Transportation General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is responsible for maintaining 18,000 lane-miles of highway and roadways, including 6,671 bridges. GDOT has more than 4,100 employees in its 7 districts and the GDOT headquarters. GDOT utilizes dedicated ACM staff, a program management consultant (PMC), and general engineering consultants (GECs) throughout the ACM pre-award and post-award stages. In GDOT, district construction personnel perform the oversight duties during the actual construction of the ACM project. The department received formal legislative authorization for D-B in 2004. Since that date, it has awarded 30 D-B and 2 P3 projects totaling $800 million and $1.6 billion, respectively. GDOT does not have authority to utilize CM/GC, and it does not plan to seek the authority at this writing. GDOT has no constraints on its ability to outsource engineering to private-sector consultants and has a long-standing, robust outsourcing program (Castro-Nova et al. 2017).

Organizational Structure GDOT is split geographically into seven districts that have decision-making power for design, construction, and public engagement. The GDOT ACM program is staffed to furnish centralized ACM project development and contract execution. Figure 23, the department’s “staff augmentation model,” shows that GDOT has contracts with both a PMC and a GEC. ACM project right of way (ROW) and utility coordination are the responsibility of the GDOT HQ. However, it is not unusual for GDOT to assign both ROW acquisition and utility coordination to the design–builder or P3 developer. As result, the agency enjoys a great deal of flexibility in the pre-award stage, as well as the ability to accelerate project delivery by shifting two major schedule risks, ROW and utilities, from the pre-award to the post-award stage of the contract if it makes sense for the given project.

Figure 23. GDOT staff augmentation model.




GDOT is embarking on a Major Mobility Improvement Program (MMIP), which may involve as much as $11 billion worth of ACM projects over the coming decade. To meet this requirement, the Office of Innovative Delivery (OID) recently awarded the PMC contract for consultant assistance managing the MMIP and providing oversight and direction to GECs that will be brought on board on a project-by-project basis. Figure 24 shows how the GDOT staff augmentation model has been expanded to handle the needs of the MMIP. A third consultant group, Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI), is added and the PMC itself is split into a group responsible for D-B project development and delivery and a group responsible for P3 projects. Additionally, a separate GEC will be retained to take over ROW and utility duties for the program.

Staffing Issues and Needs Each district within GDOT functions as a semi-autonomous representative of GDOT and is capable of providing most of the necessary engineering, construction, operations, and maintenance services within its assigned geographical area using internal assets. The GDOT OID role is to manage ACM project delivery from cradle (pre-project) to grave (closeout of construction). Since 2016, OID is also responsible for all construction management for its projects, whereas in prior years the district forces provided this function. OID is staffed as follows: • • • • • • • •

Director of P3/Program Delivery, Assistant P3 Division Director/State Innovative Delivery Administrator, P3 Administrator and Procurement Officer, Innovative Contract Technician, Two Senior Design Build Project Managers, One Design–Build Project Manager, Two Program Delivery Managers—Major Projects, and One Deputy Program Manager—Major Projects.

Figure 24. GDOT MMIP staff augmentation model.




The GDOT ACM project delivery method selection process is based on assessing the following project characteristics, at a minimum: • • • • • • • • •

Ability of ACM to help achieve strategic benefit for GDOT on the project, Accelerated schedule for public benefit and to support economic development, Complexity of construction issues, Opportunity to realize benefit from innovative designs and enhanced constructability, Ability to integrate the contractor and the designer to optimize value for money, Maximizing the use of available funding, Suitability/risk assessment, In-house staff resources to manage and deliver, and Completion of a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis.

Once the delivery method decision is made and approved by the Chief Engineer, the project technical development is scoped and tasked to a GEC, who then completes the necessary preliminary engineering due diligence, develops the technical scope of the solicitation documents, and provides technical assistance during the procurement and award phase. The D-B Project Manager and PMC drive the procurement design and strategic goal setting (scope, budget, schedule, and specific context and/or finance-driven objectives) for the overall project that are incorporated into the procurement and delivery process. GDOT is required to have funding authorized prior to execution of an ACM contract, which usually translates federally to an approved National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental document prior to award. However, GDOT uses available flexibility in 23 CFR Part 636, depending on whether NEPA is completed before RFP issuance or is scheduled after approval. GDOT is permitted to release the RFP prior to or after final NEPA approval, as long as federally compliant where federal funds are used. For state-funded ACM contracts, the environmental (NEPA) document must be approved prior to construction activities, but authorization of funding is not restricted by NEPA approval. For projects that utilize any variation of multiyear funding, including P3 or D-B, GDOT partners with the State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) by an intergovernmental agreement to accomplish the project. GDOT will often shift some of the environmental permit preparation responsibility to the design–builder or developer team and at times will require the winning proposer to acquire ROW (Gad et al. 2015). GDOT also has an active ACM project performance evaluation system that is based on a standard form comprising a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of all major aspects of the ACM procurement. The process specifically captures outcomes due to innovations brought by the design–builder, as well as value engineering results where appropriate. The OID has responsibility for collecting, analyzing, and publishing the performance evaluation of ACM projects, which are made public by being published on the GDOT website. OID promotes the transparency provided by this post-construction evaluation, as it enhances ACM credibility in the public works political arena, which in turn has made it easier to implement new variations on ACMs that have a public track record of success. It also promotes market interest by sharing knowledge with entities that have not in the past but may now be interested in participating in future ACMs.

ACM Skill Sets and Training GDOT’s staff augmentation model requires that the state employees are able to work well with its partners in project planning, procurement, design, and construction industries. Hence, it requires the ACM program managers to be able to conduct industry outreach activities as well as to know when outside expert assistance is required. GDOT’s PMCs are required to have substantial ACM complex mega-project experience. GDOT also requires their supporting GECs to have ACM complex mega-project experience. By requiring experience with complex project management, GDOT has successfully used consultants for their ACM projects.




GDOT has a well-developed set of ACM procedures and manuals, and its program managers are charged with keeping those up to date based on recent experience. GDOT’s PMC for the MMIP will provide training to both GDOT and other consultant personnel in the application of complex project management leadership, processes, and tools, including the direct application of tools developed in the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) R-10 project entitled Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects. GDOT was an early adopter of that SHRP2 product, successfully implementing it on the Northwest Corridor and the I-285/SR 400 Interchange D-BFinance (P3) projects (Gransberg et al. 2013a). Lessons learned from those two projects have been captured and will be used to produce guidelines tailored specifically to the Georgia highway project environment and added to its already ample library of ACM guidelines, procedures, and manuals.

Lessons Learned GDOT is one of the early adopters of alternative project delivery. GDOT’s recent experience resulted in the following lessons learned in staffing for ACM projects: • A champion who is also an ACM subject-matter expert is essential for successfully implement-

ing ACM. • The GDOT model of central ACM project management and extensive use of outside consultants

to furnish a robust programmatic approach to ACM projects has produced a streamlined, uniform methodology to accelerating the delivery of complex mega-projects using both D-B and P3 methods. • By committing to a robust training program for both in-house and outsourced ACM project delivery teams, GDOT has been able to institutionalize the lessons learned in its early ACM program and has codified those lessons in its ACM project delivery guidance documentation. • GDOT’s comprehensive ACM project performance evaluation program provides public transparency and enhances the department’s credibility with the political bodies from which it must gain permission and authorization to implement an aggressive ACM program like the MMIP.

Minnesota Department of Transportation General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is responsible for maintaining 33,000 lane-miles of highway and roadways, including 4,846 bridges. MnDOT has more than 4,800 employees in its 8 districts and the MnDOT headquarters. MnDOT utilizes dedicated ACM staff and general engineering consultants throughout the ACM pre-award stage and then hands the ACM project off to the appropriate district to execute the post-award ACM contract. The department was one of the first DOTs to employ D-B in 1996 with formal legislative authorization coming on board in 2001. Since that date, it has awarded 33 D-B projects. MnDOT received legislative authority to utilize CM/GC in 2012. It has no P3 authority at this writing. MnDOT also utilizes D-B-B–Best Value (DBB-BV) and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Most of D-B–IDIQ contracts in MnDOT have been awarded for repetitive preventive maintenance work that has strong proprietary content such as traffic signals and ramp metering. D-B-B–BV and IDIQ projects are generally developed and awarded by the districts with oversight from a central office innovative delivery engineer whose responsibility is to ensure that the process is relatively uniform across the state.

Organizational Structure The MnDOT ACM program is staffed to furnish centralized project development and decentralize ACM contract execution. MnDOT is split geographically into eight districts that have




decision-making power for design, construction, and public engagement. ACM project right of way (ROW) and utility coordination are the responsibility of the MnDOT HQ. However, it is not unusual for MnDOT to assign utility coordination to the design–builder or the CM/GC contractor. As a result, the agency enjoys a great deal of flexibility in the pre-award stage, as well as the ability to accelerate project delivery by shifting two major schedule risks, ROW and utilities, from the pre-award to the post-award stage of the contract if it makes sense for the given project.

Staffing Issues and Needs Each district within MnDOT functions as a semi-autonomous agency and is capable of providing most of the necessary engineering, construction, operations, and maintenance services within its assigned geographical area using internal assets. The MnDOT Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting includes the Innovative Contracting Director (ICD), whose role is to manage ACM project development up through award and furnish the necessary expertise and guidance to district ACM project delivery teams. Both D-B and CM/GC have been moved to the Office of Program Management to try to encourage earlier identification of projects utilizing ACMs. Upon award of an ACM project, the appropriate ACM program manager serves as the assistant project manager for the project. The Office of Innovative Contracting is staffed as follows: • • • • • •

Director, Project Development Engineer responsible for IDIQ and D-B-B–BV, D-B program manager (recently moved to the Office of Program Management), CM/GC program manager (recently moved to the Office of Program Management), D-B Bridge Engineer, and Metro Alternative Delivery project manager for all ACM projects in the Metro District (Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area).

The MnDOT ACM project selection process starts with a half-day project delivery method selection meeting that uses the Colorado DOT’s delivery method selection matrix to determine the most appropriate ACM for the given project. The group evaluates the following elements of the project in question while making this decision: • • • •

Delivery schedule, Design and staging complexity, Cost and competition factors, and Risk.

Once the delivery method decision is made and approved by upper management, the project is turned over to a General Engineering Consultant (GEC), who then completes the necessary preliminary engineering, develops the solicitation documents, and provides assistance during the procurement and award phase. MnDOT currently has one GEC that covers D-B, CM/GC, and IDIQ projects if necessary.

ACM Skill Sets and Training MnDOT is committed to maintaining a good relationship with its industry partners in both the design and construction industries. Hence, it requires the ACM program managers to be able to conduct industry outreach activities, as well as to know when outside expert assistance is required. It also requires supporting GECs to have ACM experience as a condition of employment. MnDOT has a well-developed set of ACM procedures and manuals and its program managers are charged with keeping those up to date based on recent experience. One notable aspect about the MnDOT ACM process is the fact that nearly all of its early D-B contract awards were protested. In every case MnDOT won the protest because of the consistent way it applies its published policies




and procedures. The most recent protest came on the emergency D-B project to replace the I-35W Bridge over the Mississippi River that unexpectedly collapsed in 2007 and is shown in Figure 25. The gist of the protest involved MnDOT’s D-B ATC procedures, which allowed the winning bidder to change the baseline design criteria during procurement. The court ruled in MnDOT’s favor and, in doing so, confirmed the agency’s ability to take advantage of innovative ATCs that would not have been responsive if an ATC process had not been in effect (Lopez del Puerto et al. 2017). Before implementing its CM/GC program, MnDOT invested in an extensive risk analysis and year-long series of industry outreach meetings using its research program to procure academic experts to lead the effort (Schierholz et al. 2012). It took a similar approach to its IDIQ program, using the research and technology transfer program to conduct surveys of contractors, sureties, and MnDOT personnel regarding the concerns and constraints that needed to be addressed in the final program to ensure its success. In both cases, the research contracts served to provide training on the new ACMs to the MnDOT program managers as well as selected district personnel (Rueda-Benavides and Gransberg 2016).

Lessons Learned MnDOT is one of the early adopters of alternative project delivery. MnDOT’s recent experience resulted in the following lessons learned in staffing for ACM projects: • A champion who is also an ACM subject-matter expert is essential for successfully

implementing ACM.

Figure 25. Collapsed and rebuilt MnDOT I-35W bridge.



Case Examples of Staffing for ACMs 55 • The MnDOT model of central ACM pre-award management and decentralized post-award

project execution provides for a uniform process that is also responsive to local needs and preferences at the district level. • MnDOT has found conducting a rigorous industry outreach effort prior to implementing new ACMs pays dividends in the future success of each approach. Its model is to identify and address the concerns of its industry partners before requesting enabling legislation. Once those outreach efforts have identified the potential political roadblocks to gaining enabling legislation, the legislation is then drafted in a manner that provides a legal framework with which both MnDOT and its engineering and construction industry partners are comfortable. The proof of the efficacy of this approach can be seen in the unanimous approval of the Minnesota CM/GC legislation in 2012. • MnDOT’s comprehensive set of ACM policy and procedure manuals have created an environment that has permitted it to successfully defend itself against all protests on ACM projects. The success is primarily due to the fact that MnDOT’s BV selection system is transparent, its ACM solicitation documents describe exactly how it works, and MnDOT personnel follow it exactly as it is written.

Missouri Department of Transportation General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) plans, designs, constructs, and maintains 33,873 miles of roadways, the seventh largest state highway system. MoDOT also has the responsibility of maintaining 10,394 bridges, including 53 major river crossings, which is more than any other state. MoDOT employs over 5,100 employees that work within one of the seven districts or the central office. Currently, MoDOT has the legislative authority to use D-B-B and D-B to deliver transportation projects across the state. At the time of this writing, MoDOT is still working to adopt D-B on a much larger scale as they have only nine completed D-B projects, two D-B projects currently under construction, three upcoming D-B projects, and one D-B project in development. The first three D-B projects completed by MoDOT were mega projects in terms of cost as each had a budget over $200 million. Recently though, MoDOT has been using D-B successfully for smaller-sized but critical projects, in the $20 to $30 million dollar range. MoDOT has contracted over $1.5 billion in D-B projects, which has saved DOT money on projects completed ahead of schedule. Along with D-B, MoDOT utilizes alternative technical concepts (ATCs) with D-B-B during project development and A+B or Cost + Time contracting. In fact, MoDOT was the first state transportation agency to successfully incorporate ATCs into a traditional D-B-B project. To use D-B, MoDOT project directors and executives require justification as to why D-B is better than traditional contracting methods. MoDOT determines use of D-B based on innovation, speed, efficiency, risk management, and complexity. As the statewide transportation improvement plan (STIP) is developed, MoDOT management identifies candidate projects for using D-B and adds the projects to the STIP. However, this does not guarantee that D-B will be selected. MoDOT has recently adopted a project delivery selection matrix (PDSM) from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to assist with determining the optimal delivery system for a project. If a project can be optimally delivered using D-B, MoDOT performs a high-level risk assessment to resolve the major risks and determine if the D-B delivery system can help mitigate or reduce the identified risks. Once D-B delivery is justified for a project, that recommendation is made and passed on to the project director, who passes it on to the chief engineer, and then to the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission to make the final




recommendation. This decision-making process is also used to select the design–builder during procurement.

Organizational Structure MoDOT is a decentralized organization, in which the seven districts of MoDOT have the authority to make decisions to move projects forward. Each district is locally focused, which allows each MoDOT district to establish and maintain relationships with local and regional governments. Along with the seven districts, Missouri has 26 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional planning commissions (RPCs) across the state, The MPOs and RPCs represent local-, city-, and county-level transportation agencies that MoDOT works with to develop long-range transportation plans. As with many other states, MPOs and RPCs are not involved in the day-to-day tasks of maintaining the state highway and roadway system as that is the responsibility of MoDOT. Although MoDOT operates in a decentralized structure, the use of ACMs, specifically D-B, requires authorizations from the chief engineer and the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, which operates from the central office. The Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission is a six-member bipartisan group that oversees all of the department’s activities from the central office, which receives recommendations from the chief engineer on the use of D-B for a project and for the selected design–builder. The Commission then has the final decision on whether to use D-B for a project and whether the selected design–builder can provide the best value for the project. Once the Commission approves the selection(s), the project is passed back to the district project director to lead the design and construction of the project.

Staffing Issues and Needs Each of the seven districts within MoDOT operate as their own transportation agency that focuses on a specific geographical area of the state. In terms of ACM projects, none of the districts have a dedicated office for implementing D-B. As MoDOT has completed a dozen D-B projects, each district has a varying degree of experience with D-B. MoDOT has a D-B coordinator, which is an individual that assists with the D-B process from identifying potential D-B projects all the way through to project closeout. The D-B coordinator is also a project director managing a D-B project. Once more MoDOT staff gain experience in the use of D-B, the plan is to establish combined design and construction divisions within each district to handle D-B projects right along with D-B-B projects on a regular basis. Once the decision is made to use D-B, a district project director is assigned to the project. Typically, the project director is an individual with experience leading various types of projects for MoDOT. The project director is a decision maker and possesses extensive skills for the specific project scope of work, such as bridges/structures and traffic control. The project director is responsible for assembling a team from the district based on the project’s scope of work to manage and assist with procurement, project development, and construction. The project team will include individuals that support and complement the project director’s skills and knowledge. Additionally, the project director can select a deputy project director for a project. The deputy project director is to supplement knowledge and skills that the project director may not fully possess. For example, the project director may have strong skills and experience on the construction side, but may not possess extensive knowledge on the design side. Since a D-B project requires knowledge and experience in design and construction, the project director will look to select a deputy project director with design skills and experience. ATCs are typically proposed during confidential one-on-one meetings with the MoDOT project team members and the proposing contractor to provide feedback on how the solutions




provided will meet the project goals. Ideally, MoDOT will assign one project engineer who has the responsibility to manage the ATC process for the project team. This project engineer will collect requests for clarifications (RFCs), additional applicable standards (AASs), and design exceptions from proposing contractors during the ATC procurement process. The project engineer then provides a summary of the proposed RFCs, AASs, and design exceptions to the project team for review. Then, the project engineer works with the proposing teams based on if an ATC was accepted or not. The drawback for this process is that MoDOT does not always have a project engineer available to handle the ATC process. When using D-B, MoDOT in-house engineering staff has had to adjust its role in the development of the project design. In-house engineering mostly operates in an oversight manner to verify the design for quality and acceptance. Working in the oversight role allows MoDOT staff to focus on high-risk items, which vary from project to project. The MoDOT interviewee noted that MoDOT staff is trending toward dropping many years of experienced employees to third-party private firms as well as to other local city and county transportation agencies. Most of the experienced MoDOT employees leave for city and county transportation positions that offer more compensation than MoDOT, while some leave for private consulting and construction firms. Losing experience and the downsizing of the department has meant that MoDOT relies on consultants to assist with the work. MoDOT is strategic in the use of consultants as MoDOT retains the decision-making abilities, but consultants are used to support preliminary engineering tasks, such as assistance with surveys, utilities, traffic modeling, and geotechnical investigation. MoDOT has slowly began to work consultants into the delivery and procurement of the project, but still has only limited experience with consultants working in the procurement process. Finally, MoDOT does understand that for the D-B program to grow, additional resources will be needed, which may mean more use of consultants with roles and responsibilities expanded beyond what MoDOT uses today.

ACM Skill Sets and Training MoDOT looks for project directors to lead D-B projects that are well rounded with a variety of knowledge, skills, and experience. Not only are technical skills needed, but MoDOT relies on the contractor and consultant industry to help construct the projects, so “soft” skills are also necessary for the project director. Leadership and the ability to coordinate with others is a required skill of the project director, while communication is a skill that MoDOT expects from the entire project team members. ACM training for MoDOT staff often involves embedding staff for a period of time on a current D-B project to learn the process and the changes in roles and responsibilities that occur during design and construction of a D-B project. The concept is that the project director and their support staff can coach the embedded staff on the processes used and walk them through some of the major activities found in a D-B project, such as procurement and design verification. However, beyond experiencing a D-B project as training, MoDOT does not currently offer any additional formal or informal training to staff or to the local and regional construction industry. The MoDOT interviewee noted that some type of formal training for D-B and ATCs will be developed in the future. The D-B coordinator is currently developing training material, but it has not been used at the time of this research.

Lessons Learned MoDOT is a decentralized state transportation agency that has only conducted a handful of ACM projects, all of which were D-B projects, ATCs with D-B-B, and A+B contracting. From




discussions with the MoDOT personnel and investigation of literature from MoDOT, the lessons learned in staffing for ACM projects are summarized as follows: • One of the main reasons that MoDOT pursues D-B is to “do more with less.” As with many state

DOTs, MoDOT downsized the department and lost staff to other entities. With D-B, MoDOT has the ability to fast track projects, which utilize incoming funds faster and gets the project done sooner. As a result, resources are used in the most efficient manner on D-B projects. • Project teams for D-B projects have individuals with leadership and management skills along with specific technical skills based on the scope of the project. The project director selects project team members from staff within the district where the project is located, and this team is responsible for the performance of the project. • The project team members for a D-B project are assigned to the project task based on their expertise to allow the team to fully concentrate on that particular job. This setup has resulted in successful D-B projects in MoDOT. MoDOT has a plan is to develop dedicated staff to perform ACM projects.

North Carolina Department of Transportation General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is one of North Carolina’s largest government agencies and is responsible for maintaining approximately 80,000 miles of roadways, of which 15,000 miles are primary highways and 65,000 miles are secondary roads. NCDOT is also responsible for over 13,500 bridges and 4,500 culverts all across the state. NCDOT employs more than 5,000 employees in the central headquarters in Raleigh and across 14 divisions throughout the North Carolina. NCDOT utilizes traditional delivery methods and ACMs to design and construct transportation projects throughout the state. NCDOT has the authority to use design–build (D-B) and public–private partnerships (P3). The first D-B projects were conducted in the late 1990s, and NCDOT has now completed well over 15 D-B projects across the state. P3 projects are still a fairly new process for NCDOT, with the first major P3 project initiated about two years ago to address major traffic congestion along a 26-mile stretch of I-77 in the Charlotte area using the concept of express/managed lanes (Figure 26). For NCDOT, determining the method to deliver a project involves understanding the money that is available for projects. When an influx of funds becomes available, NCDOT has the objective to use that money quickly and effectively on much-needed projects. To do so, D-B

Figure 26. Layout of NCDOT’s I-77 P3 project.




becomes a real option for projects. In addition, the same stands true for private money coming from private entities. When private funds can be infused into a project via P3 delivery, NCDOT goes after the funds to offset the lack of funds for critical projects. Therefore, when private entities show interest in providing funds to a project, NCDOT strongly considers it. During the planning stages of projects, NCDOT makes the decision on whether or not to use D-B. This decision is based on a number of project type and scope factors, such as Interstate projects, projects with multiple bridges and crossings, and projects that require complex traffic control. Other factors that NCDOT considers is the value that the project and DOT can gain from having a design–builder on board early in design. NCDOT has the responsibility for determining if D-B or P3 can provide the best value for the dollar, and which method has the ability to bring in innovation and alternate techniques to complete the project more efficiently.

Organizational Structure NCDOT uses a central procurement–central delivery organizational structure for ACM projects. This centralized organization structure relies on the central office to control and perform most of the nonconstruction maintenance work, including design, environmental analysis, and project programming. One advantage of the centralized organizational structure that NCDOT finds to be effective is having in-depth expertise and human resources centralized, as this reduces the duplication of responsibilities and improves program delivery. The ACM offices (the D-B and P3 group) are located at the NCDOT headquarters in Raleigh, which procure and manage the delivery of D-B and P3 projects while working with NCDOT personnel from the division where the project is located. The ACM offices also work with other centralized units, such as bridges, ITS, and maintenance, to develop the scope and manage the project. The D-B manager is a centralized employee that assigns the project engineer to lead the project. The project engineer is also typically a centralized employee.

Staffing Issues and Needs With a centralized organizational structure, the D-B group and P3 group at NCDOT have a set number of employees, regardless of the amount of work. To supplement staff when the work load for alternative contracting project increases, the ACM groups will work with other NCDOT offices and divisions to help develop the scope of work and to assist in the design review process. However, the human resources available in the ACM office and in the divisions is limited; therefore, NCDOT relies on consultants to perform the work. In terms of hiring individuals to work in the ACM offices and on D-B and/or P3 projects, the alternative contracting offices prefer to hire personnel from within NCDOT that have many years of experience and can provide expertise in one or a few areas of a project. Currently, the alternative contracting offices employ several structural engineers, hydraulic engineers, roadway engineers, railroad experts, and traffic control engineers. By having a mix of different experts and disciplines, the ACM team has a wide variety of experiences and skills, which helps NCDOT improve the overall performance of ACM projects. For specific aspects of a project, if the ACM offices do not have a particular expert as a part of their staff, they typically reach out to staff in other divisions throughout the state. This is crucial, as the ACM office does not have the ability to hire staff on an as-needed basis. The NCDOT interviewee noted that ACM offices utilize the resources available within the department to supplement the lack of an expertise. In general, NCDOT will utilize internal resources for staffing based on the specific need. If internal resources cannot be found, then NCDOT considers hiring third-party consultants as a last resort.




The number of in-house engineers has decreased in recent years, which has left NCDOT with fewer human resources on the preconstruction side of a project. However, with D-B and P3, the in-house engineers change their roles from providing the detailed engineering and design input throughout the design phase to providing mainly the initial bridging documents during the early stages of the design phase. Once the transfer of information occurs, the in-house engineers workload decreases, as typically NCDOT handles the design reviews within the ACM offices and does not require the use of in-house engineers. Although NCDOT experienced downsizing of the department as did most other DOTs, the NCDOT interviewee noted that the ACM offices have seen a slight increase in the number of employees since its inception. However, the increase has not offset the huge increase in the volume of ACM work. There are more projects that use D-B and P3 than in the past, which reveals a shortage in human resources. To complicate this further, NCDOT is currently experiencing the loss of qualified staff to private-sector companies. Private-sector companies, particularly on the preconstruction side of a project, are pulling employees away from public agencies with better offers. The NCDOT interviewee noted that competing against private-sector businesses to retain experienced staff is challenging for a state DOT. To supplement needed staff, NCDOT occasionally uses consultants for specific aspects of projects. NCDOT prefers to use internal resources first before looking to supplement the work outside the agency. For D-B projects, the majority of the project development and management of construction is performed by NCDOT staff, and consultants are brought in for specific purposes, such as evaluation of ATCs. The NCDOT interviewee noted that P3 projects use more consultants than D-B projects because of the complicated funding situation found in P3 projects. The NCDOT interviewee also explained that with the implementation of P3, many in the ACM offices now feel like they have to be part lawyer. As a result, NCDOT prefers outsourcing the legal aspects of P3 projects. For QA/QC purposes, in D-B projects, NCDOT typically handles construction engineering and inspection (CEI) with in-house staff and rarely uses a third-party CEI firm. The reason behind this is that most of the ACM projects in NCDOT include funds from the federal government. Federal funding for a transportation project has many requirements and regulations to follow that have to be recorded, documented, and completed correctly. NCDOT has a better comfort level using in-house staff for completing the federal requirements and regulations. One major difference between D-B and P3 projects is that P3 contracts include a portion for operations and maintenance once the construction work is complete. Therefore, the concessionaire is responsible for operating and maintaining the project for a set period of time. As a result, for P3 projects NCDOT now performs reviews rather than the actual maintenance. NCDOT has the division maintenance engineer lead the review and oversight process for a P3 project. The NCDOT interviewee mentioned that NCDOT has not seen any major changes or increase in staff for the maintenance and operations phase of a P3 project.

ACM Skill Sets and Training NCDOT looks for combination of skills for employees that includes technical knowledge, project management skills and experience, and leadership and communication skills. Of these knowledge and skill sets, NCDOT acknowledges the importance of soft skills, such as leadership skills, written and oral communication skills, and partnering and team-building skills. Of the skill sets shown, the ability of leadership to coordinate other staff is one of the most important skill sets that NCDOT expects from its staff for ACM projects. D-B and P3 projects typically involve complexity, high risk, or a large volume of work. This means that many different players will be involved in a project. As the owner of the project, it is NCDOT’s job to manage and




lead the project. Leading a project requires not only technical knowledge, but also tacit knowledge that allows gaining the attention of others and providing guidance that moves a project forward. Leadership is a skill that NCDOT looks for in potential employees on a regular basis. NCDOT also believes that communication skills are key in D-B, and even more so in P3 projects. For example, someone working on an NCDOT ACM project may have to collect information outside of their experience in and then not be able to communicate that same information to someone that can interpret it. This is not much of a concern on a traditional D-B-B project, where roles and responsibilities are clear and well understood. However, it is an issue for D-B projects and is intensified for P3 projects, which brings in financing and legal aspects. For training, NCDOT encourages staff to watch videos and offers seminars online that relate to ACMs and transportation construction to further their skills. In terms of formal ACM training, NCDOT offered training on D-B in 2010 to the 14 divisions when the D-B program was expanding. At that time, only approximately half of the divisions across the state had experience with D-B. The divisions and staff with ACM experience provided training to expand the D-B program to the entire state. However, this particular training has not occurred in recent years, as NCDOT now has knowledgeable staff across the state that can train incoming hires. Furthermore, NCDOT does not offer formal training to the contractors and consultants in ACM projects. However, NCDOT has many mechanisms in place to help contractors with the new processes found in D-B and P3 projects. NCDOT is committed to setting up all contractors for success because the agency believes that if the contractor can be successful, then NCDOT will be successful. In addition, NCDOT participates in industry forums to request feedback from contractors on a regular basis on what is working well and what NCDOT can work to improve. NCDOT may offer training for contractors in the future if the market warrants such training and if it will be a benefit to the department.

Lessons Learned NCDOT has established itself as a centralized organizational structure that uses D-B and P3 to deliver its transportation projects. Based on NCDOT’s extensive experience with ACMs, a collection of the major lessons that NCDOT has learned for staffing of ACM projects is summarized as follows: • The upper management support as well as buy-in from the entire department helped to grow

the D-B and P3 groups into efficient and effective teams. NCDOT has the ability to complete tremendous amounts of work using a limited, albeit experienced and knowledgeable, staff. • By selecting a delivery method as early as possible, NCDOT has the ability to better forecast the staff needed for a project. The NCDOT D-B and P3 groups are committed to coordinating internal staff effectively before using consultants. • The centralized organizational structure allows NCDOT to use its ACM-experienced personnel to their fullest potential and provides NCDOT the ability to effectively utilize resources throughout the state. A more efficient process results from centralized procurement and delivery and helps NCDOT reduce duplication of staff when administering and executing ACM projects.

Ohio Department of Transportation General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is an administrative department for the state of Ohio government responsible for developing and maintaining the seventh-largest state highway system, excluding the Ohio Turnpike, with an annual budget of around $5 billion.




The roadway system in ODOT contains 43,000 miles of state and federal highways, with 14,071 bridges that carries the fifth-largest traffic volume and the fourth-largest in commercial freight in the U.S. Ohio DOT employs around 5,000 employees annually within the central office and corresponding 12 transportation districts across the state. Currently, ODOT has the authority to utilize design–build (D-B) and public–private partnerships (P3), in addition to traditional D-B-B to deliver highway construction projects. ODOT has conducted 320 D-B projects and is currently constructing the first P3 project within the state (Figure 27). ODOT has three primary versions of D-B. In low-bid D-B, the design–builder is selected based on the lowest cost (and responsive) bidder from any pre-qualified bidder teaming up with a pre-qualified consultant. In a two-step low-bid D-B, the design–build teams (builder and design consultant) are shortlisted based on qualifications, and the project is ultimately awarded based on the lowest responsive bid. In value-based D-B, the design–builder firm is selected based on the best value score, which is based on bid price and a technical qualifications assessment. Determining the use of an alternative contracting method (ACM) for a project occurs as early as possible in project development and includes analyzing the risks involved, funding availability, schedule constraints, and innovation. • If a project needs to be delivered in a constrained timeframe or needs to be delivered quickly,

ODOT has had success with delivering projects faster using D-B. • If a project does not have the allocated budget to be constructed, then ODOT can seek outside

financial support and consider P3 for the project. • If ODOT sees an opportunity to use an ACM, which will result in the transfer of risk to a third

party, then ODOT will consider D-B or P3. • If a project is highly complicated and ODOT realizes that innovative ideas and processes

would be necessary, ODOT experience shows that D-B projects tend to implement more innovation than traditional projects due to the teaming of a contractor with a designer.

Organizational Structure ODOT divides the state of Ohio into 12 transportation districts. Each district executes and manages the design and construction of projects. The central office, located in Columbus, sets the policy, handles the funding, conducts the procurement, and develops the contract package. The Office of Alternative Project Delivery in the Division of Construction Management in the central office is in charge of procurement and contracting for D-B projects, leading in the development of RFQs and RFPs, and participating in the review of statement of qualifications

Figure 27. Construction work for the Southern Ohio Veterans Memorial Highway (P3 project).




and proposals for the larger, complex D-B projects. The Division of Innovative Delivery evaluates potential projects for P3 feasibility and assists in the development of RFQs, RFPs, and financial evaluations, as well as participates in the review of statements of qualification and proposals. These two offices perform similar roles, but the Division of Innovative Delivery focuses on projects, which may contain private financing options.

Staffing Issues and Needs The D-B and P3 divisions in the central office assist in the assembly of a project management team for a D-B or P3 project based heavily on personnel availability. Ultimate staffing decisions are made by the districts. Unlike other state DOTs, ODOT does not have a dedicated staff working just on D-B and P3 projects, except for a select few individuals. To determine project staffing, ODOT will look at potential project management staff that would fit with a project based on past experiences. Once availability is reviewed, the project team can ultimately be put together. This focus is primarily centered on the project management team, but supplementary staffing utilized for inspection and support is also considered. Another consideration for staffing an ACM project is the experience and knowledge a person has with D-B and P3 processes. Roles are changed in an ACM project as compared to a traditional D-B-B project. ACM staff have knowledge in many different areas and have a good understanding of the design and construction process. Flexibility and tacit knowledge are also attributes ODOT looks for to staff a D-B or P3 project. ODOT is a transportation agency that relies on consultants to augment needed resources for an ACM project. ODOT, like many other DOTs, experienced downsizing in recent years. Many of the D-B projects within the last 6–7 years have grown substantially in size and complexity as compared to past projects, even further straining staffing numbers. Most of the management aspects of an ACM project remain in-house, such as the procurement process. However, ODOT does not have the internal staff to cover all project aspects. ODOT utilizes consulting as an extension of staff in specific areas of an ACM project, such as financing (specifically for P3 projects), design review, independent quality assurance, and construction inspection. They also utilize consultants to assist in proposal reviews. A drawback ODOT faces with using consultants (sometimes as much as 60%–70% of project staff) occurs after project completion. As consultants leave as the project is completed, the loss of the gained experience and knowledge is an unavoidable consequence. These experiences are not retained within the agency, further continuing the stress on staffing. Without a large dedicated staff (central office and district office) solely working on D-B and P3 projects, ODOT loses crucial experience and knowledge when consultants leave. For in-house engineering personnel, the roles change from the typical design process in a D-B-B project to an oversight verification role, ensuring the design–builder is developing a design fitting the requirements of the project. As ODOT stated and is typical in the industry, they transfer project-specific design risk to the design–builder. The oversight performed is not investigating the fine details but rather verifying the overall design concept and scope requirement. The modified role of in-house engineers requires individuals who are flexible with their time and efforts, have understanding and experience of design and construction, can handle the increased intensity during specific aspects of the project such as design review, and understand that design and construction occur concurrently requiring reviews of partial plan sets. The loss of experience and limited individual employee availability are considerable concerns. ODOT has a limited core group of individuals focusing on D-B and P3 projects. To complicate matters, ODOT has a shortage of experience and knowledgeable staff in the 10 to




15 years of experience range, as many of these individuals have left the department for other positions. Therefore, ODOT realizes that there is an anticipated gap in experience and knowledge within the department that may result in ODOT relying even more on consultants for ACM projects.

ACM Skill Sets and Training Skills and knowledge necessary for D-B or P3 projects range from technical skills to tacit knowledge in order to manage and lead many different individuals and organizations involved in an ACM project. First, ACM staff have knowledge and possibly experience with working on a D-B or P3. Second, ACM personnel have a strong set of soft skills since most ODOT staff working on a D-B or P3 project will be involved with many different stakeholders and project participants. ODOT ACM staff are flexible in working with the rest of the project participants as a team, understanding the accelerated nature of an ACM project and how to lead the efforts, working through uncomfortable situations and issues, and having the confidence to make decisions. As for department training in D-B and P3, ODOT has provided project manager training and ACM-specific training modules for D-B, P3, and other ACM approaches (such as A + B or Cost + Time, and BV procurement). ODOT also provides project-specific training and guidance on proposal evaluations and scoring technical qualifications. Beyond these training items, most of the training occurs by being a part of an ACM project. No specialized training exists at ODOT, although staff is encouraged, but not directed, to seek out training seminars and webinars from the National Highway Institute (NHI) or other similar organizations. ODOT’s approach to training and informing the construction industry is to disseminate information on D-B, P3, or specific ACM projects through seminars and sessions at transportation conferences. The sessions involve discussing the proposal evaluation process as contractors seem to be interested in the scoring process. However, ODOT has not provided training to the industry on ways to manage the design and construction as a contractor on a D-B or P3 project; this is left to the contractor to figure out.

Lessons Learned ODOT is a combined organized transportation agency with a history of implementing D-B and P3 for delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects across the state. Lessons learned from ODOT in terms of staffing for ACM projects are summarized as follows: • During project closeout of construction for a D-B and P3 project, ODOT has learned to

include a materials specialist from within the department. A materials specialist assigned to an ACM project can review and document the outcomes on the materials side of a project that may be difficult for a project manager or general engineer. • ACM projects tend to be time intensive and accelerated. Therefore, ODOT looks for individuals who are project oriented and are willing to put in the time necessary to complete the project successfully. D-B and P3 projects raise the expectations placed on the project team as compared to many traditional projects, and ODOT has seen many teams who may not be able to manage those time-intensive requirements. Management must remain cognizant of the very possible scenario of replacing project personnel. • It is critical to identify personnel who will be involved in the construction phase of the project and have them engaged as early as possible. ODOT realized having internal construction staff involved during preliminary engineering/design allows the team to work together early on in the development of the project. Being a part of design gives the construction phase staff the




knowledge of the project, the reasons the project was scoped the way it is, and ways to construct the project before construction begins. Using this approach allows construction staff to make decisions in a more informed manner. • It is critical to staff the project with management members who are not only empowered by upper management to make critical project-level decisions, but are also willing to make those decisions. While incorrect decisions have been occasionally made, ODOT believes it has benefited more with timely decision makers versus projects that have had more tentative management. ODOT has found that staffing with people who are decisive ensures project progress, offsetting the cost of any judgment errors.

Virginia Department of Transportation General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is the state transportation agency responsible for building, maintaining and operating roads, bridges, and tunnels throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia has the third-largest state-maintained highway system in the U.S. with 57,867 miles of state maintained roadways, including 1,118 Interstate miles, and 12,603 bridges. VDOT is governed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board governs, which is a 17-member panel that the governor appoints to oversee and properly distribute funding for transportation projects across the state. Currently, VDOT steadily employs approximately 7,500 people. VDOT is a state transportation agency with a history of using ACMs to deliver critical transportation projects, including the use of design–build (D-B), which the Virginia General Assembly authorized in 2001. VDOT also was one of the first state DOTs to gain authority for using public–private partnerships (P3), based on the Virginia Public–Private Transportation Act of 1995 and the Public–Private Education and Facilities Act of 2002. Currently, VDOT does not have the authority to use construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC). The use of either D-B or P3 is risk-driven, meaning that VDOT staff realize the potential benefit for risk allocation or risk transfer. VDOT can accelerate projects using D-B due to the overlapping of design with construction. For P3, the infusion of private funding is a prime factor that allows VDOT to deliver projects that may not have been built due to lack of funding. Additionally, VDOT uses a process called SMART SCALE, which is a legislative process to prioritize the right transportation projects for funding to ensure the best use of limited tax dollars. Selecting the right project begins with an evaluation of the project using a needsbased assessment to make the business case that a project is a high priority to the state and stakeholders. Projects are scored based on an objective and outcome-based process that is transparent to the public and holds decision makers accountable to taxpayers and stakeholders. Once a project is advanced as a priority, the next step includes estimating the cost of the project. If the estimated cost of the project is more than available funds, VDOT has two options: (1) remove the project from the potential project list, or (2) consider using an alternative delivery method. Figure 28 outlines the SMART SCALE process. Traditionally, VDOT tends to use alternative delivery for large-sized projects in terms of cost and scope as well as complicated and complex projects. Complexity and innovation become factors for VDOT to consider using D-B. Cost becomes more of a factor when available funding cannot cover the cost of a project (in most cases mega-projects), so private financing and P3 delivery is then considered. Yet VDOT performs a detailed screening of a project and can simultaneously consider design-bid-build (D-B-B), D-B, and P3, as these are the three contracting methods available for VDOT to use on transportation projects.




Eligibility / Funding

Project Application

Project Screening

Evaluation / Scoring

Prioritization / Programming

Figure 28. VDOT’s SMART SCALE five-step process.

Organizational Structure VDOT utilizes a combined organizational structure, which entails that the central office, located in Richmond, is responsible for screening of possible alternative delivery projects, development, procurement, and the contract for the project, while the district in which the project is located implements the design, construction, operations, and maintenance of a project. VDOT has nine highway districts: Bristol, Culpeper, Fredericksburg, Hampton Roads, Lynchburg, Northern Virginia, Richmond, Salem, and Staunton. With contracting and procurement housed within the central office, VDOT does not have to duplicate these efforts in each district across the state. Consistency in procurement and contracting has lead VDOT to having very few issues with the construction industry today. Within the central office, VDOT has two separate offices to handle D-B and P3 projects. The Alternative Project Delivery (APD) Division office is responsible for developing a list of potential D-B candidate projects, developing, and advertising the request for qualifications and request for proposals for D-B projects, short-listing and interviewing potential contractors, and awarding the D-B contract. The Office of Public–Private Partnerships (P3 Office), similar to the APD Division office, is responsible for developing, procuring, and implementing a statewide transportation program for project delivery using P3. The P3 Office is also responsible for providing long-term support to the districts for implementing and operating/maintaining P3 projects in Virginia.

Staffing Issues and Needs VDOT’s organizational setup allows the APD Division office and the P3 Office to staff the procurement and contracting team from the central office, which consists of VDOT personnel with experience and knowledge of alternative delivery processes. However, although VDOT centralizes development and procurement for ACM projects, it is not performed in a vacuum. In most cases, district personnel will assist the development and procurement team with the project scope, local coordination efforts, and participate in the proposal review panel. The P3 Office also provides personnel for project development, procurement, and financing with assistance from other divisions such as financial planning, environmental, and from district personnel. Financing becomes a critical part of a P3 project and requires essential staff with technical and financial knowledge. Once the contract is in place, central office staff support the district project manager to implement the design and construction and to lead the project with a team from the district. One area of staffing concern at VDOT is the loss of experienced and skilled personnel. VDOT experienced downsizing of the department during the 2000s and lost quality individuals to private firms, which can offer more in terms of compensation and responsibilities. To complicate matters, when VDOT loses experienced and knowledgeable staff, new hires to replace these individuals often do not have the same level of experience required for a project. As a result,




VDOT relies on consultants to supplement human resources for specific tasks, such as engineering, inspections, and financing. VDOT typically works with the same four or five consultants, which has allows each party to build a trustworthy and open relationship and results in very few issues between VDOT and the consultant community. Quality control and quality assurance are the responsibility of the hired design–builder. Typically, the contractor can either perform quality control with in-house staff or a consultant. On the quality assurance side, the design–builder is required contractually to hire an independent consultant firm that does not have any ties to the design–builder firm. VDOTuses independent assurance and independent verification (IAIV) for oversight, which provides a tool to check that the project is being constructed in adherence to any FHWA requirements and to verify payment. VDOT has four P3 projects in the operations and maintenance phase, which is the responsibility of the concessionaire for a set number of years ranging from 30 to 75. With long-term contracted maintenance, the concessionaire handles the day-to-day maintenance and operations of the P3 project, while VDOT has adjusted its normal maintenance procedures to more of an oversight and verification role. The P3 Office has internal staff with operations and maintenance experience, but most of the maintenance oversight for a P3 project is handled by the districts. Currently, VDOT is considering changing the maintenance oversight process for P3 projects by containing the operations and maintenance within the central office. By centralizing the maintenance and operations oversight for long-term contracted maintenance, VDOT would have one standard approach for consistency as well as the ability to develop a legacy of knowledge that can be passed along to future staff.

ACM Skill Sets and Training Both the APD Division office and the P3 Office look for specific individuals to work on ACM projects. As VDOT personnel stated, selected staff have substantial sets of expertise and knowledge that complements the rest of the team. For example, the APD office brings together staff with diverse skill sets such as geotechnical, construction, rural design, structure and bridge design, hydraulics, and environmental. The P3 Office includes personnel with the same expertise and knowledge as D-B, along with additional individuals serving as technical advisors with skills in financing, regulation, and maintenance and operations. The P3 and D-B offices highlight the importance of soft skills such as leadership, coordinating the team, and team building. Also mentioned as a critical skill set for ACM project staff is flexibility, being open to other’s ideas, and working as a team to a workable solution. Training staff for D-B and P3 projects is a shadowing process in which VDOT personnel can be assigned to a D-B or P3 team to shadow the project manager and learn development and procurement processes. In addition, VDOT has in the past conducted information sessions for each district on the fundamentals of D-B and P3 when these were new to the department. For D-B projects, the APD Division has been using a legal consultant since 2005 to conduct annual training to approximately 30 people. The attendees of the annual training include not only central staff, but also anyone that may be involved in or manage a D-B project. This exposes a new set of VDOT personnel to D-B. No formal construction industry training is offered on a regular basis. VDOT conducted training with contractors in the past for D-B, but interest waned as the experienced D-B contractors were unwilling to share D-B information with other contractors. However, the centralized offices for D-B and P3 projects work with industry on a regular basis to keep communication open and to discuss any issues and advancements in terms D-B and P3. The centralized approach to communicating with industry provides contractors and consultants one place to discuss issues and ask questions rather than having to do this at the district level.




VDOT also participates in the Virginia Transportation Construction Alliance (VTCA) Annual Meeting. The VTCA represents the transportation construction industry in Virginia, and VDOT understands that it is crucial to maintain a working relationship with VTCA. At the annual meeting, VDOT shares current information and emerging ideas that can benefit the construction industry and VDOT. VDOT has also participated in specific D-B and P3 breakout sessions at the VTCA Annual Meeting.

Lessons Learned VDOT is the primary transportation agency for Virginia, conducting over $5 billion worth of work annually, including $1.8 billion in construction. To deliver this work, VDOT has the authority to use traditional and alternative delivery methods to complete much-needed projects. In conducting dozens of D-B and several P3 projects across the state, the following represent the lessons that VDOT has learned in terms of staffing ACM projects: • VDOT acknowledges that in-house engineering staff must change their role when working on

a D-B or P3 project. Instead of providing day-to-day design activities for projects, in-house project engineers perform design reviews by working alongside the design–builder. It is important that project engineers understand the change in their role and what the expectations are from the in-house engineers for D-B and P3 projects. The large number of D-B and P3 projects involving engineering staff centrally and in the districts has led to this mindset virtually becoming the norm. It’s not “innovative” anymore. • VDOT uses consultants on ACM projects to supplement VDOT staff. VDOT loses experienced and skilled individuals to downsizing, retirement, and other firms. The legal and financial aspects P3 project contracts require expertise that VDOT may not possess internally; VDOT often relies on consultants for these tasks. • In order to implement the shadowing process for staff to learn about D-B delivery on an actual project, the APD Division categorizes staff as A1 and A2 personnel. A2 personnel are the senior engineers and managers that have extensive knowledge and experience with D-B projects, while A1 personnel are individuals that the D-B office hopes to train for moving eventually to A2 status. • The P3 Office utilizes the “shadowing” process to bring new staff from deputy P3 project managers to P3 project managers. However, because of the diverse skills and expertise frequently needed on P3 projects, most of the P3 Office are involved periodically in current P3 projects.

Summary This chapter presented key findings on ACM staffing from the case examples of eight state DOTs. The DOTs included in this chapter have a wide variety of experiences in delivering ACM projects. The California, Florida, and Missouri DOTs use a decentralized organizational structure to deliver their ACM projects. The Georgia and North Carolina DOTs use a centralized organizational structure. The other three state DOTs (Minnesota, Ohio, and Virginia) use a combined organizational structure for their ACM projects. Almost all of these eight state DOTs have more than 10 years of experience on ACMs and have delivered more than 15 ACM projects. Each of the eight case examples was discussed in detail in terms of general findings on ACMs, organizational structure, ACM staffing needs and issues, ACM staffing skill sets and training, and key lessons learned on ACM staffing. The findings presented in this chapter provide the most current effective practices on staffing utilization for ACMs from the experienced state DOTs across the nation.



CHAPTER 5

Conclusions

Introduction The objective of this synthesis is to document the current state of practice in staffing for ACMs. The conclusions presented in this chapter are based on the four research instruments used to collect the information contained in the synthesis: comprehensive literature review; survey of U.S. agencies, including a content analysis of DOT documents, guidelines, and manuals related to ACMs; and case examples of select state DOTs. Each of these research methodology steps provided insight and a better understanding of the organizational structure and staffing needs for delivering ACM projects. The criteria used in this report for drawing conclusions and identifying effective practices were discussed in Chapter 1. When two or more lines of information from the survey, literature review, content analysis, and case examples connected, these lines of information were considered substantial and used to develop the conclusions and candidates for the list of effective practices. Findings that were discovered during the analysis of one method but not validated by a second method were reported but are not included as conclusions. This process was followed rigorously throughout the entire report. The gaps in knowledge and practice identified from this study serve as a launching point to explore the potential for future research. This synthesis report and future research studies will help guide transportation agencies to effectively and efficiently develop a sustainable core workforce for their ACM projects and programs.

Conclusions The conclusions drawn based on the findings from the previous chapters are summarized as follows, in no particular order. 1. The foremost knowledge domain and skill sets in staffing determination found to be critical to the success of implementing ACM projects are: –– Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff, –– Risk identification and analysis skills, –– Strong partnering and team-building skills, –– Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure, –– Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing, –– Knowledge of construction contract administration, –– Strong commitment to successful outcomes, –– Accountability and trust, –– Innovative problem solving attitude, and –– Flexibility and openness to new concepts. 69 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.



2. The fast-paced and collaborative nature of ACM projects requires higher-level management and decision-making skills. A project manager of an ACM project is required to have strong negotiation skills in addition to technical expertise. 3. Having staff with estimating expertise and background is essential for CM/GC projects, because the staff are able to understand the assumptions that drive GMP estimates and facilitate the negotiation process. 4. It is challenging to find staff that have both a strong technical background and excel in the procurement process. Not everyone is the right fit for ACM projects. 5. Having staff with background and knowledge to better understand the contract quality management plan, roles, and responsibilities with material testing is essential for ACMs. 6. DOT personnel cannot be expected to successfully implement ACMs without sufficient training and a baseline understanding of the variations of each delivery method. By committing to a robust training program, DOTs are able to internalize ACM functions. 7. Upper management support and commitment of senior leaders to ACM programs help to grow staff into efficient and effective teams. 8. Developing D-B scope of work is resource intensive and demands more active involvement from senior staff than comparable D-B-B projects. 9. A loss of experienced staff to the private sector or other agencies is a concern for implementing ACM projects and programs. An ACM program is required to have ample workload to keep experienced staff interested. 10. In addition to skill sets required for D-B projects, staff in P3 project are often required to have experience in engaging private partners at various stages of procurement and contract execution. Agencies typically rely on consultants to handle the legal and financial parts of P3 contracts. 11. Staffing issues during the project-closeout phase of ACM projects involve transferring warranties to appropriate parties and receipt of accurate and timely as-built drawings from the contractors.

Effective Practices Effective practices, in no particular order, are as follows: 1. Having the same core staff involved in both preconstruction and construction is often seen as key to the success of ACM projects. 2. Strategically using consultants along with developing core ACM competencies within the department is an important ingredient for successful ACMs. Overreliance on consultants can hamper the growth and development of a DOT’s own staff. 3. DOTs often use consultants to implement ACM projects when the in-house staff are not available or lack required expertise. Consultant services can be scaled up or down to augment staff and provide expertise when appropriate. 4. Dedicated staff to facilitate the ACM process is important for successful implementation of ACMs. 5. Early contractor involvement to help in-house staff improve the design for constructability is essential for CM/GC projects. 6. Engaging consultants in ACM training is important to the transition from outsourcing to use of in-house staff for ACM projects. 7. The development and maintenance of ACM templates, guidelines, and formal training programs helps state DOTs develop a committed core workforce to implement ACM programs. 8. Having qualified agency staff with the ability to appropriately manage consultants used in ACMs is important for success. Agencies need sufficient in-house expertise to keep consultants on track and ensure that their advice is consistent with agency goals.



Conclusions 71

9. DOTs typically use General Engineering Consultants (GEC) with ACM expertise to accelerate the effectiveness of ACM programs. Junior-level staff are encouraged to be involved with GECs to gain experience and help institutionalize ACMs within the department. 10. Effectively implementing ACMs requires staff to be able to work with the DOT’s subjectmatter experts to promote culture changes between D-B-B and ACMs. Having staff with the abilities to do things other than D-B-B is important to implement ACMs.

Future Research Future research is suggested in the following areas: 1. Attracting and retaining talented staff and a committed core workforce with appropriate skills and competences for ACM implementation is vital for state DOTs. Information and guidance on this is lacking. For example, what is the formal career path for ACM staff? How do the compensation and benefits packages offered to DOT ACM staff compare with private-sector opportunities? 2. Another research need is for guidance on how to select an appropriate project organizational structure and staffing level (e.g., both agency staff and consultants) to effectively and efficiently deliver transportation projects and programs across all ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, P3, ATC, D-B-B Best Value, and others).



References

23 CFR 637. (2011). Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ text-idx?SID=4f4c8515fcb6873787857e30df84a31b&mc=true&node=pt23.1.637&rgn=div5. Accessed June 3, 2017). AHTD. (2015). Design-Build Guidelines and Procedures Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, 2015. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2006). Primer on Contracting for the Twenty-First Century (5th ed.). Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2008). Guide for Design-Build Procurement. Washington, D.C. Castro-Nova, I., Gad, G. M., and Gransberg, D. D. (2017). An Assessment of State Agency Practices in Managing Geotechnical Risks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2630, p. 9–14. https://doi.org/10.3141/2630-02. CDOT. (2016). Design-Build Manual. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2016. CDOT. (2015). (CMGC) Construction Manager/General Contractor Manual. Colorado Department of Transportation. The Commonwealth of Virginia. (2014). Virginia Public–Private Partnership: Implementation Manual and Guidelines for the Public–Private Transportation Act of 1995. Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE). (2016). Strategies for Improving Transportation Project Delivery Performance. Final Report for the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Cronin, B., Anderson, L., Fien-Helfman, D., Cronin, C., Cook, A., Lodato, M., and Venner, M. (2012). NCHRP Report 693: Attracting, Recruiting, and Retaining Skilled Staff for Transportation System Operations and Management. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Deloitte. (2008). Boosting Business Performance Through Organizational Design. https://www.consultancy.nl/ media/Boosting%20Business%20Performance-13.pdf. Dongo, Q. J., Gransberg, D. D., and Tritt, R. (2014). Evaluation of the Performance of California Projects Delivered Using Design-Sequencing. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. FHWA. (2012a). Establishing a Public-Private Partnership Program. PRiMER: Peer-Reviewed Reports in Medical Education Research. FHWA. (2012b). Going the Distance Together: Context Sensitive Solutions for Better Transportation: A Practitioner’s Guide. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/practitionersguide/index.html [Accessed April 27, 2016]. Gad, G.M., Gransberg, D.D., and Loulakis, M.C. (2015). Policies and Procedures for Successfully Implementing Alternative Technical Concepts, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2504, pp. 78–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2504-10. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). (2017). The Innovative Delivery Office. Available: http://www. dot.ga.gov/AboutGDOT/Offices [Accessed May 2017]. Gibson, B., Wallace, C. Y., and Sturgill, R. E. (2015). Synthesis of Public-Private Partnerships: Potential Issues and Best Practices for Program and Project Implementation and Administration. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Gransberg, D.D. (2013). Early Contractor Design Involvement to Expedite Delivery of Emergency Highway Projects: Case Studies from Six States. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2347. pp. 19–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2347-03. Gransberg, D. D., and Shane, J. (2010). NCHRP Synthesis 402: Construction Manager-at-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. https:// doi.org/10.17226/14350.



References 73

Gransberg, D. D., and Shane, J. S.. Strong, K., and Lopez del Puerto, C. (2013a). Project Complexity Mapping in Five Dimensions for Complex Transport Projects. Journal of Management Engineering, 29(4), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000163. Gransberg, D., Shane, J., Anderson, S.; Strong, K., Pittenger, D., and McMinimee, J. (2013b). NCHRP Project 10-85, “A Guidebook for Construction Manager at Risk Contracting for Highway Projects.” Final Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, Massachusetts: AddisonWesley Publishing. Jones, C; Scott, S., and Konrath, L. (2016). NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 349, “Guidelines for Developing Materials Acceptance Plans for Alternative Contracting Methods.” Final Report, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Keck, D., Patel, H., Scolaro, A. J., Bloch, A., & Ryan, C. (2010). NCHRP Report 662: Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.17226/14405. Lippman, L. H., Ryberg, R., Carney, R., and Moore, K. A. (2015). Workforce Connections: Key “Soft Skills” that Foster Youth Workforce Success: Toward a Consensus Across Fields. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Lopez del Puerto, C., Scheepbouwer, E. Gransberg, D.D., and Loulakis, M.A. (2017). Emergency Mega-Project Case Study Protest: The I-35W Bridge. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction. ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000216. Minchin, E., Ptschelinzew, L., Migliaccio, G. C., Gatti, U., Atkins, K., Warne, T., Hostetler, G., and Asiamah, S. (2014). NCHRP Report 787: Guide for Design Management on Design-Build and Construction Manager/ General Contractor Projects. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.17226/22273. Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) (2016). Strategic Staffing Guidebook. Available at: www.beta.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/wfp/stratstf.pdf. (Accessed December 2016). Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. SAGE Publications, Inc., Chicago, IL, 320 pp. MoDOT. Accountability Report Executive Summary, 2017, 3 pp. http://modot.org/newsandinfo/reports/ documents/2017AccountabilityReport.pdf. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Declan, George Mason School of Public Policy, and Housman and Associates. (2011). SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-2: Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., http://www.trb.org/Publications/ Blurbs/165286.aspx. Rueda-Benavides, J.A. and Gransberg, D.D. (2016). Effective Risk Management Strategies in Construction and Maintenance Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contracts. Presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Schierholz, J.M., Gransberg, D.D., and J. McMinimee. (2012). Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Construction Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery: The View from the Field. Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Scott, S., Loulakis, M., Tran, D., Njord, J., Parkinson, R., and Henk, G. (2016). WSDOT’s Implementation of Design-Build Project Delivery, Report to the Joint Transportation Committee, State of Washington, Olympia, Washington, December 2016. Scott, S., Molenaar, K. R., Gransberg, D. D., and Smith, N. C. (2006). NCHRP Report 561: Best Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Secrest C., Crossett, J., and Huang, J. (2012). NCHRP Project 20-24(83), “Alternative State DOT Organizational Models for Delivering Service.” Final Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 57 pp. Smith, R.D. (2005). “The CM@Risk Contractor: In the Driver’s Seat of the CM@Risk Team,” 2005 AACE International Transaction, Risk.04. 3 pp. Taylor, T. R., and Maloney, W. F. (2013). NCHRP Synthesis 450: Forecasting Highway Construction Staffing Requirements. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., https:// doi.org/10.17226/22514. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). (2010). Management and Organizational Review, Final Report. 628 pp. Tran, D., Harper, C., and Minchin, R. E. (2017). NCHRP Synthesis 504: Strategic Program Delivery. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2004). “Report to Congress on Public-Private Partnerships,” Dec. 2004, 193 pp. VanMeter, D., Meeks, C., Scott, C., Hoenig, A., and Matthews, T. (2016). “OID Engineering Services and I-85 Widening DB and GEC Industry Forum.”




Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). (2017). Organizational Guide, 76 pp. Warne, T. R. (2003). NCHRP Synthesis 313: State DOT Outsourcing and Private-Sector Utilization. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Witheford, D. K. (1997). NCHRP Synthesis 246: Outsourcing of State Highway Facilities and Services. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.



Acronyms and Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACM Alternative Contracting Method Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CM/GC Construction Manager/General Contractor D-B Design–Build D-B-B Design-Bid-Build DOT Department of Transportation FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation PPP or P3 Public–Private Partnerships VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation



APPENDIX A

National Survey Questionnaire

Synthesis 48-04 seeks to (1) document current practices for organization and staffing needs of ACM projects; (2) identify skill sets, experience level, and staffing utilization required for ACM projects; and (3) identify and document unique staffing issues for the primary ACMs, including Design-Build (D-B), Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), and Public–Private Partnership (P3). Results of this project will benefit you by providing information on effective staffing practices for implementing ACM projects. Please complete and submit this survey by [date]. If you have any questions, please contact [survey administrator] by phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx or email:

A.1 General and Demographic Information 1. Please provide the following contact information: First Name:

___________________________________________

Last Name:

___________________________________________

Phone Number:

___________________________________________

E-mail: ___________________________________________ U.S. state in which you are employed: ___________________________________________ 2. You are employed by what type of organization?  State Department of Transportation  Federal Agency; Name of Agency: __________________________________________  Other Public Transportation Agency; Name of Agency: ___________________________  Other, please describe: ___________________________________________________ 3. What group/section do you work in? (Check all that apply.)  Design group/section  Program delivery group/section  Construction group/section  Contracts/procurement group/section  Operations group/section  Maintenance group/section  Alternative project delivery group/section  Other: __________________________ 4. Does your agency have authority (or has had authority) to use the following alternative contracting methods (ACMs)? D-B

CM/GC

P3

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

If your agency does not use ACMs (e.g., D-B, CMGC, or P3) please skip to the final question. 76 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.


National Survey Questionnaire 77

5. Does your agency have legal constraints placed on the out-sourcing of services for which it may have the capacity to perform in-house?  Yes  No  Don’t know If yes, please explain: __________________________________________ 6. Please indicate procurement methods that your agency has used to procure contractors for ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects. (Check all that apply.) Procurement Low bid

D-B

CM/GC

P3

Best Value Qualification-based Others, please specify: ___________________

7. How many ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects has your agency delivered? D-B

CM/GC

P3

1-4

1-4

1-4

5-10

5-10

5-10

11-15

11-15

11-15

>15

>15

>15

NA

NA

NA

8. Approximately what percentage of your average annual construction program, in terms of number of projects, is delivered using ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3)?  < 1%  1%–5%  5%–10%  10%–15%  15%–20%  >20% 9. Approximately what percentage of your average annual construction budget, in terms of dollar volume, is allocated to ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects?  < 10%  10%–20%  20%–30%  30%–40%  40%–50%  >50% 10. How long has your agency been using ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3)? Time 1-2 years

D-B

CM/GC

P3

3-5 years 6-10 years >10 years




A.2 Organizational Structure and Training for ACM Projects 11. Which organizational structure does your agency use to deliver ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects? Structure Centralized structure (e.g., central procurement and administration) Decentralized structure (e.g., decentral procurement and administration) Combination structure (e.g., central procurement with decentral administration) Others, please specify:

D-B

CM/GC

P3

___________________

12. Does your agency have a strategic approach to staffing needs for implementing ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3)?  Yes  No If yes, please describe briefly the approach? ________________________________________________________________________ 13. Does your agency have a business unit/division for ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3)?  Yes  No If yes, please provide a web link if available: ____________________________ 14. Does your agency have a separate office for the procurement/administration of ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects? D-B

CM/GC

P3

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

15. Does your agency utilize consultants for implementing ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3)? D-B

CM/GC

P3

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

16. If the answer to Question 15 is yes, please estimate the percentage of in-house staff over A&E consultant personnel (e.g., ratio of owner/consultant personnel): ________________% 17. If the answer to Question 15 is yes, which factors does your agency consider in making the outsourcing decision? (Check all that apply.)  Lack of availability of in-house personnel  Lack of qualifications of in-house personnel  Cost savings  Other, please specify: ________________________




18. If the answer to Question 15 is yes, what activities does consultant staff do? (Check all that apply.)  Developing ACM practices and documents  RFP/RFQ and contract development  ACM assessment and selection  Environmental reviews and document preparation  Preliminary engineering design  Project management in the procurement phase  Project management in the construction phase  Technical proposal assessment  Providing ACM training to agency staff  Other, please specify: __________________________________ 19. Does your agency provide ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) training for your staff?  Yes  No 20. If the answer to Question 19 is yes, what type of training is often provided to staff? (Check all that apply.)  Agency-wide training is provided to staff  Project-specific training for every project  Project-specific training for some projects  Other, please specify: __________________________________

A.3 Staffing Needs and Skill Sets for ACM Projects 21. Which of the following ranges best describe the average age of your staff for ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects?  20–29 years old  30–39 years old  40–49 years old  50–59 years old  60 or more years old 22. Which of the following ranges best describe the average years of experience of your staff related to ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects?  1–5 years  5–10 years  10–15 years  15–20 years  20–25 years  25–30 years  30 or more years 23. Which of the following ranges best describe the average years of experience of your construction staff in general (e.g., construction administration, estimating, scheduling)?  1–5 years  5–10 years  10–15 years  15–20 years  20–25 years  25–30 years  30 or more years




24. Does your agency use technology tools [e.g., building information modeling (BIM)/ construction/civil information modeling (CIM), laser scanners, smart sensors, cameras, etc.] to meet staffing needs when implementing ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3)?  Yes  No If “Yes,” which technology: ____________________________ 25. Which of the following strategies has your agency used to address staff shortfall (work load staffing peaks) to deliver ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects? (Check all that apply.)  Outsource to consultant staff;  Place existing staff on overtime;  Hire additional staff;  Temporary reassignments of staff from other business units;  Reduce inspection requirements;  Use risk-based/statistical inspection methods;  Assign non-construction personnel to construction duties;  Other, please specify: _______________________________________ 26. Does your agency use ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) to augment its existing staff (e.g., outsourcing design and/or construction responsibilities) during program funding spikes?  Yes  No Please provide more detail if possible: ____________________________

A.4 Unique Staffing Issues for ACM Projects 27. In each of the typical ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) project phases listed below, please indicate who performs each function by checking the appropriate box. (Check all that apply.) Phases

Central Office Agency Staff

District Office Agency Staff

Project Office Agency Staff

Consultant Staff

PrivateSector Partner

Other, please explain:

Scoping Phase

…………

Environmental Phase Procurement Phase Design Phase

…………

Construction Phase Project Close-out Phase

…………


………… …………

…………



28. Who performs the following construction quality management and quality assurance tasks in your ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects? (Check all that apply.) Tasks

Technical review of construction shop drawings Technical review of construction material submittals Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection Quality control testing Establishment of horizontal and vertical control Verification testing Acceptance testing Independent assurance testing/inspection Approval of progress payments for construction progress Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans Report of nonconforming work or punch list

NA

Agency Staff

Designer's Consultant

Contractor’s Construction Staff

Contractor’s Consultant Staff

Agency’s Consultant Staff

PrivateSector Partner

If Other, please explain: …………

………… ………… ………… ………… ………… ………… ………… …………

…………

…………

…………




29. Based on your knowledge and experience, please indicate the top 5 knowledge domains and skill sets that are critical to the success of implementing ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects with each delivery method. Knowledge and Skill Sets

D-B

CM/GC

Knowledge of highway materials and construction means and methods Ability to explain construction plans, specification, and contract provisions Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff Experience in managing claim and disputes Understanding of project management principles Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure Understanding of federal and state environmental approvals and environmental commitments affecting implementation Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing Knowledge of quality assurance principles for ACMs Familiar with federal transportation project finance structuring Ability to schedule, estimate, and control the work Knowledge of finance, accounting and cost management Project scheduling and resource loading Knowledge of change management Risk identification and analysis skills Knowledge of cost estimating practices and system implementation Strong background in the preconstruction process and planning Familiar with contractor’s build/assembly methods Performance and accountability reporting to multiple levels Knowledge of construction contract administration Strong partnering and team-building skills Excellent written and oral communication skills Ability to synthesize cross-checks and balances into project delivery methods Knowledge of development, tracking, and reporting of performance measures Documentation and record maintenance skills Other, please specify: _______________________________


P3



30. Please rank the following “soft” skills relative to the success of implementing ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3). (1 = Not Important, 2 = Slightly Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Extremely Important, and NA = Not Applicable) “Soft” Skills Flexible and adaptive Diverse backgrounds Innovative problem solving attitude Responsible and reflective Accountability and trust Flexibility and open to new concepts Strong commitment to successful outcome Other, please specify: _________________

1

2

3

4

5

NA

31. How do ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, and P3) projects influence your staffing requirements compared to a traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) project? D-B

CM/GC

P3

Less staff is required



More staff is required



No difference

No difference

No difference

Don’t know

Don’t know

Don’t know

32. Please explain unique staffing issues in implementing ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects in your agency. D-B

CM/GC

P3

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

………………….

33. What is the impact on your staffing requirements during the ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) project close-out phase (e.g., warranties, record documents, and unpaid bills) compared to a traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) project?  Less staff is required  More staff is required  No difference  Don’t know 34. Please explain staffing issues related to the ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) project close-out phase: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________




35. Does your agency have a manual or document that specifically describes the staffing procedures to be used for ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects?  Yes  No If yes, please add the weblink: _________________________________________or email [survey administrator] so they can obtain a copy. 36. What are the lessons learned in staffing practices to implement ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects in your agency? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 37. Would you be willing to discuss your staffing practices in ACM (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects with the research team in a structured interview?  Yes  No 38. If the answer to Question 35 is NO, please direct us to someone else in your agency? Contact name: ___________________________________________ Phone number: ___________________________________________ E-mail: ___________________________________________ 39. Do you have any other information that you would like to share with the research team that might add value to this study? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________



APPENDIX B

Aggregated Survey Results

B.1 General and Demographic Information Table B1 summarizes state DOTs responding to the survey. Table B1. State DOTs responding to the survey. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

State DOT Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Minnesota Montana

No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

State DOT Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New York New Hampshire North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming



86 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods • Figure B1 displays the result for the group/section in which the survey respondents work.

Out of 46 responses obtained, a majority of the respondents work in multiple groups or sections. The construction group is the most common group as shown. Respondents who chose “other areas” included the works in material group, project management division, and infrastructure policy.

Maintenance Group/Section

0%

Operations Group/Section

8.70%

Program delivery Group/Section

13%

Design Group/Section

13%

Contracts/procurement Group/Section

17.40%

Alternative Project Delivery Group/Section

34.80%

Construction Group/Section

67.40%

Other

11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Fig B1. Group/section in which survey respondent work (n = 46).

• Figure B2 displays the result for authority to use primary ACMs. Six state DOTs reported that

they do not have authority to use ACMs (North Dakota, South Dakota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa). 43 agencies reported that they have authority to use at least one of the primary ACMs. Majority of the agencies have authority to use D-B (93%), followed by P3 (45.6%). Only 39% of the agencies are authorized to use CM/GC.

CM/GC

39%

P3

45.65%

D-B

0%

93%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Fig B2. Authority to use alternate contracting methods (n = 46).


100%


Aggregated Survey Results 87 • Figure B3 shows whether or not agencies have legal constraints placed on the outsourcing of

services for which it may have the capacity to perform in-house. Out of 39 responses (excluding WY, SD, ND, OK, NE, IN and IA), more than half of the agencies have no legal constraints on outsourcing of services. 8 agencies out of 39 agencies (20.5%) have legal constraints on outsourcing of services.

No

64%

Yes

20.50%

Don't Know

15.50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fig B3. Constraints on outsourcing of services (n = 39).

• Figure B4 shows the procurement methods agencies have used to procure contractors for

primary ACMs. Total responses for D-B, CM/GC, and P3 are 40, 17, and 17 respectively.

Best Value

82.50%

Low Bid

57.50%

Qualification-Based

25%

Other

10% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Fig B4.1. Procurement methods used by the agencies for D-B (n = 40).




Best Value

70.60%


47%

Low Bid

5.90%

Other

5.90% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Fig B4.2. Procurement methods used by the agencies for CM/GC (n = 17).

Best Value

Low Bid

70.60%

0.00%


47%

Other

5.90% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Fig B4.3. Procurement methods used by the agencies for P3 (n = 17).



Aggregated Survey Results 89 • Figure B5 shows the number of projects delivered by the agencies with the primary ACMs. No

data were received from ND, SD, NE, IA, WY, AR and OK state DOTs. Number of responses for D-B, CM/GC, and P3 are 39, 18, and 16 respectively. Most of the agencies have delivered more than 15 projects with D-B (53.8%). Likewise, a majority of the agencies (62.5%) have delivered less than 4 projects with P3 as shown. 60%

53.80%

50% 40% 30% 20%

20.50% 15.40% 10.30%

10% 0% 1 to 4

5 to 10

11 to 15

>15

Fig B5.1. Number of projects delivered by the agencies with D-B (n = 39).

60%

55.60%

50% 40% 27.80%

30% 20%

11.11% 10% 0%

5.60%

1 to 4

5 to 10

11 to 15

>15

Fig B5.2. Number of projects delivered by the agencies with CM/GC (n = 18).



90 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods 70%

62.50%

60% 50% 40% 31.25% 30% 20% 10%

6.30% 0%

0%

1 to 4

5 to 10

11 to 15

>15

Fig B5.3. Number of projects delivered by the agencies with P3 (n = 16).

• Fig B6 shows the percentage of average annual construction program in terms of number

of projects. Out of 37 respondents (excluding AZ, IA, FL, OK, AR, NE, ND, WY, and SD) majority (46%) of agencies have performed 1% to 5% of their annual construction programs using ACMs as shown.

Range 20% 0

Total 1

37

46%

45% 40% 35% 30%

29.70%

25% 20%

13.50%

15%

8.10%

10% 5%

0%

0% 20%

Fig B6. Percentage of annual construction program using ACMs (n = 37).



Aggregated Survey Results 91 • Figure B7 shows the percentage of average annual construction budget in terms of dollar

volume allocated to ACM projects. 36 responses were obtained (excluding AZ, LA, IA, WY, OK, NJ, AR, NE, ND, and SD).

Range Count

45%

10% to 20% 11

50% 3

Total 36

41.60%

40% 35%

30.50%

30% 25% 20%

13.80%

15% 10%

8.40%

5.70%

5%

0.00%

0% 50%

Fig B7. Percentage of average annual construction budget in dollar volume (n = 36).

• Figure B8 shows the number of years of experience of agencies with the primary ACMs. As

shown, many agencies have more than 10 years of experience with D-B. 70%

63.10%

60% 50% 40% 30%

23.70%

20%

13.20%

10% 0%

0% 10 years

Fig B8.1. Number of years of experience with D-B (n = 38).




50%

44.40%

45% 40% 35%

27.80%

30% 25% 20%

16.60%

15%

11.20%

10% 5% 0% 10 years

Fig B8.2. Number of years of experience with CM/GC (n = 18).

40%

35.70%

35% 28.60%

30% 25%

21.40%

20% 15%

14.30%

10% 5% 0%

10 years

Fig B8.3. Number of years of experience with P3 (n = 14).



Aggregated Survey Results 93

B.2 Organizational Structure and Training for ACM Projects • Figure B9 shows the organizational structures that the agencies use to deliver primary ACMs.

Total responses for D-B, CM/GC, and P3 are 38, 18, and 15 respectively. It is seen that a majority of the agencies use combination structure for all primary ACMs.

Combination Structure

73.70%

Decentralized Structure

5.30%


21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Fig B9.1. Organizational structure in use for D-B (n = 38).


77.90%


5.50%


16.60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Fig B9.2. Organizational structure in use for CM/GC (n = 18).





46.70%


6.60%


46.70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Fig B9.3. Organizational structure in use for P3 (n = 15).

• Figure B10 shows whether or not the agencies have strategic approach to staffing needs for

implementing ACMs. It is seen that a majority (66.6%) of the agencies have no strategic approach to staffing needs for implementing ACMs. 39 responses were obtained from various state DOTs (excluding IA, NJ, OK, NE, ND, WY, and SD).

33.40%

66.60%

Yes

No

Fig B10. Strategic approach to staffing needs for ACMs (n = 39).



Aggregated Survey Results 95 • Figure B11 shows whether the agencies have business unit/divisions for ACMs. A little more

than half of the responding agencies do not have business unit/divisions for ACMs.

48.70% 51.30%

Yes

No

Fig B11. Business unit/division for ACMs (n = 39).

• Table B2 shows the number of agencies that have a separate office for the procurement/

administration of ACM. It is seen that most agencies have no separate office for procurement/ administration of ACMs. Table B2. Separate office for procurement/administration of ACMs. ACMs

Yes

No

Responses

D-B

13

26

39

CM-GC

5

13

18

P3

10

9

19

• Table B3 shows the number of agencies that utilize consultants for implementing ACMs. Most

agencies utilize outside consultants to deliver ACM projects as shown. Table B3. Use of consultants for ACMs. ACMs

Yes

No

Responses

D-B

34

4

38

CM-GC

11

3

14

P3

15

1

16



96 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods • Figure B12 shows the factors that agencies consider in making outsourcing decisions. Major

factors that influence outsourcing decisions are found to be lack of availability of in house personnel and lack of qualifications of in-house personnel.

100%

94.20%

90% 80%

73.50%

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

20.50% 11.80%

10% 0%

Other

Lack of Availability of Lack of Qualifications of In-House Personnel In-House Personnel

Cost Savings

Fig B12. Factors in making outsourcing decisions (n = 34).

• Figure B13 shows agency responses to the typical activities that are conducted by consultants.

As shown, preliminary engineering design and contract development are two such activities in which consultant staff are mostly employed by the agencies.

Preliminary Engineering Design

88%

RFP/RFQ and Contract Development

85%

Environmental Reviews and Document Preparation

68%

Project Management in the Construction Phase

56%

Technical Proposal Assessment

50%

Project Management in the Procurement Phase

44%

Developing ACM Practices and Documents

44%

Providing ACM Training to Agency Staff

33%

ACM Assessment and Selection

24%

Other

18% 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fig B13. Consultant staff activities (n = 34).



Aggregated Survey Results 97 • Figure B14 shows results regarding whether the agencies provide ACM training to their staff.

It is found that a majority (69.2%) of responding agencies provide ACM training to their staff.

30.80%

69.20%

Yes

No

Fig B14. ACM training to staff (n = 39).

• Figure B15 shows the results of type of training provided to staff for ACM. Out of 27 respond-

ing agencies that provide ACM training to their staff, more than half (51.8%) provide projectspecific training. Likewise, 44.4% of responding agencies provide agency-wide training, as shown.

Project-Specific Training for Some projects

51.80%

Agency-Wide Training is Provided to Staff

44.40%

Project-Specific Training for Every Project

37%

Other 0%

22.20% 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Fig B15. Types of training provided to staff (n = 27).




B.3 Staffing Needs and Skill Sets for ACM Projects • Figure B16 shows the average age of staff for ACM of 39 responding agencies (other 7 agencies

have no authority for ACMs). It is seen that a majority of staff are in the 40 to 49 years age group. 2.60%

0% 10.20%

28.20%

59%

20-29 Years

30 - 39 Years

40- 49 Years

50-59 Years

60 Years or more

Fig B16. Average age of staff for ACM (n = 39).

• Figure B17 shows the average years of experience of agency staff related to ACM. It is found

that a majority of agency staff fall in the range of 5 to 15 years of experience. 0% 10.20%

18%

7.70%

30.80%

1 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

10 to 15 Years

33.30%

15 to 20 Years

20 to 25 Years

Fig B17. Average years of experience related to ACMs (n = 39).


25 to 30 Years


Aggregated Survey Results 99 • Figure B18 shows the average years of experience of agency staff in general. Many staff fall into

the experience level of 15 to 20 years, as shown. 2.60%

0%

5.50% 5.50%

13.40%

27%

46%

1 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

10 to 15 Years

20 to 25 Years

25 to 30 Years

30 or more years

15 to 20 Years

Fig B18. Average years of experience of agency staff in general (n = 37).

• Figure B19 shows the agencies’ use of technological tools (e.g., BIM/CIM, laser scanners,

smart sensors, cameras, etc.) to meet staffing needs when implementing ACMs. A majority (81.6%) of the agencies do not use technological tools to meet staffing needs. Only 7 agencies (out of 38) use technological tools (CT, KS, MA, MI, MT, and NY state DOTs).

18.40%

81.60%

YES

NO

Fig B19. The use of technological tools to meet staffing needs in ACMs (n = 38).



100 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods • Figure B20 shows the strategies that agencies use to address staff shortfall (workload staffing

peaks) to deliver ACM projects. 92% of agencies employ consultant staff to cope with staff shortfalls. Likewise, placing existing staff on overtime and temporary reassignments of staff from other business units are also the common measures adopted by the agencies to tackle staff shortfall.

Outsource to Consultant Staff

92.10%

Place Existing Staff on Overtime

60.40%

Temporary Reassignments of Staff from Other Business Units

58.00%

Hire Additional Staff Use Risk-based/Statistical Inspection Methods Assign Non-Construction Personnel to Construction Duties

21% 18.40% 7.90%

Reduce Inspection Requirements

2.60%

Other

2.60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fig B20. Strategies to address staff shortfalls (n = 38).

• Figure B21 shows the result of whether or not agencies use ACMs to augment its existing staff

(e.g., outsourcing design and/or construction responsibilities) during program funding spikes. Only 39.4% of agencies use ACM to augment existing staff during program funding spikes.

39.40%

60.60%

YES

NO

Fig B21. Use of ACMs to augment existing staff (n = 38).



Aggregated Survey Results 101

B.4 Unique Staffing Issues for ACM Projects • Table B4 shows the roles of various agency staff at different phases of typical ACM projects.

Table B4. Roles of agency staff at different phases of ACMs. Phases

Central Office Agency Staff

District Office Agency Staff

Project Office Agency Staff

Consultant Staff

Private Sector Partner

Scoping

65.7%

47.3%

26.4%

31.6%

0%

37

Environmental

56.7%

40.6%

16.3%

51.4%

0%

37

Procurement

92%

28.9%

28.9%

34.2%

0%

37

Design

48.6%

46.2%

37.8%

73%

13.4%

37

Construction

24.4%

51.5%

59.4%

56.8%

13.4%

37

Project Close-Out

36.8%

55.3%

60.5%

36.8%

7.9%

37

Response

• Table B5 shows the roles of different agency staff in construction quality management and

quality assurance for ACMs.

Table B5. Roles of agency staff in construction QA/QC. Designer's Consultant

Contractor's Construction Staff

Contractor's Consultant Staff

Agency's Consultant Staff

Private Sector Partner

Tasks Approval of construction post-award QA/QC

NA

Agency Staff

2.8%

94.4%

8.3%

11.1%

94.4%

50%

2.8%

36

Verification testing Independent assurance testing/inspection Approval of progress payments for construction progress Technical review of construction shop drawings Technical review of construction material submittals Report of nonconforming work or punch list

0%

72.2%

2.7%

22.2%

27.7%

47.2%

2.8%

36

2.8%

88.9%

0%

2.8%

19.4%

38.8%

0%

36

2.8%

97.2%

2.8%

2.8%

94.4%

36.1%

0%

36

0%

78.4%

46%

35.1%

51.4%

56.8%

5.4%

36

0%

86.5%

10.8%

37.8%

43.2%

46%

2.7%

36

0%

83.4%

13.9%

36.1%

38.9%

58.3%

2.8%

36

Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection

0%

88.9%

2.8%

38.8%

19.4%

55.5%

5.6%

36

0%

83.4%

2.8%

41.7%

33.3%

63.9%

5.6%

36

Quality control testing Establishment of horizontal and vertical control

0%

43.24%

0%

65%

54%

32.4%

8.1%

36

0%

33.4%

11.1%

83%

55.6%

19.4%

5.6%

36

Acceptance testing

0%

85.7%

0%

11.4%

31.4%

48.5%

2.9%

36


Response


102 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods • Table B6 shows the knowledge and skill sets that are critical to the success of implementing

ACMs. Table B6. Knowledge and skill sets for ACMs. Knowledge and Skill Sets Knowledge of highway materials and construction means and methods Ability to explain construction plans, specification, and contract provisions Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff Experience in managing claim and disputes

D-B

CM/GC

P3

Response

100%

18%

45%

11

88%

38%

13%

8

96%

52%

40%

25

75%

50%

25%

4

100%

50%

10%

10

90%

25%

40%

20

100%

20%

40%

5

75%

50%

38%

8

Knowledge of quality assurance principles for ACMs Familiar with federal transportation project finance structuring

100%

22%

56%

9

33%

0%

67%

3

Ability to schedule, estimate, and control the work

63%

50%

13%

8

Knowledge of finance, accounting and cost management

25%

0%

100%

4

Project scheduling and resource loading

75%

50%

0%

4

Knowledge of change management

67%

100%

33%

3

Risk identification and analysis skills Knowledge of cost estimating practices and system implementation Strong background in the pre-construction process and planning

96%

54%

38%

24

0%

100%

0%

3

50%

38%

13%

8

Understanding of project management principles Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure Understanding of federal and state environmental approvals Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing

Familiar with contractor's build/assembly methods

0%

0%

0%

0

100%

0%

0%

2

Knowledge of construction contract administration

94%

38%

44%

16

Strong partnering and team-building skills

87%

43%

30%

23

Excellent written and oral communication skills Ability to synthesize cross-checks and balances into project delivery methods Knowledge of development, tracking, and reporting of performance measures

86%

43%

29%

7

25%

0%

100%

4

50%

0%

50%

2

Documentation and record maintenance skills

83%

33%

33%

6

Performance and accountability reporting to multiple levels



Aggregated Survey Results 103 • Table B7 shows the “soft” skills relative to the success of implementing ACMs. (1 = Not Impor-

tant, 2 = Slightly Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Extremely Important, NA = Not Applicable)

Table B7. “Soft” skills relative to the success of implementing ACMs. "SOFT SKILLS"

1

2

3

4

5

NA

Responsible and reflective

0%

6%

26%

41%

26%

0%

Diverse backgrounds

6%

18%

47%

21%

9%

0%

Innovative problem solving attitude

0%

3%

3%

41%

53%

0%

Accountability and trust

0%

0%

0%

38%

62%

0%

Flexibility and open to new concepts

0%

0%

9%

38%

53%

0%

Strong commitment to successful outcome

0%

0%

0%

35%

65%

0%

• Figure B22 shows influence of ACM projects on staffing requirements compared to tradi-

tional D-B-B projects.

11% 38% 32%

19% Less Staff is required

More Staff is required

No Difference

Don't Know

Fig B22.1. Influence of D-B on staffing requirements (n = 37).

3% 19%

50%

28%

Less Staff is required


No Difference

Don't Know

Fig B22.2. Influence of CM/GC on staffing requirements (n = 36).




28%

58%

8% 6%

Less Staff is required


No Difference

Don't Know

Fig B22.3. Influence of P3 on staffing requirements (n = 36).

• Figure B23 shows impact on staffing requirements during the ACM project close-out phase

compared to a traditional D-B-B project. Almost half of the respondents reported that there is no difference on staffing requirements during ACM project closeout phase.

60%

57%

50% 40% 30%

24%

20%

14%

10% 0%

5%

Less staff is required

More staff is required

No difference

Don't know

Fig B23. Impact on staffing requirements during ACM project close-out (n = 37).



Aggregated Survey Results 105 • Table B8 shows the results of open-ended questions related to staffing issues during the ACM

project closeout phase. Table B8. Staffing issues related to the ACM project closeout phase. Count 1 1

1 1

1

Staffing issues Related to Project Close -out We have not yet closed out an ACM project. While the process is different, w e haven't experienced any particular staffing issues. We are just entering the M&O phase for our first P3 project, so we don't have experience from that project yet. At this time we are working through the as-built responsibilities but no other apparent issues as of yet. Only issues related to transfer of warranties to appropriate parties (i.e., subcontractors) and receipt of ACCURATE, TIMELY As-Built from the contractors/DB teams. Understanding of the Project's unique Quality Management Plan tests an individual's capacity to see a relatively deep body of knowledge and information and participants, but keeping the role of responsible stewardship. Strong sense of what is fair for the contracting entity versus the terms of the actual contract entered into; Contract language is generally customized and as such can still be ambiguous so good judgement is needed especially at closeout.

1 Close out should be the same as D -B-B. 1 1 1

1 1

Design Build typically involves less close -out documentation review, but requires more work for warranty monitoring. We haven't had any issues with project phase closeout. Closeout has been a challenge on the 10 projects we've done. Mostly due to the Private Partner and their staff leaving, but we are getting better at it. Our current approach is to have 2-3 key staff from the agency work on closeout with the partner. We are working on other options currently. Major team participants have usually moved on to the next project and don't have time for the old one. Generally, there's more documentation and we're still growing as an agency, so there's a learning curve for staff on ACM projects.

1 Staff is a function of the job's size and scope. Delegation of the Final Design and the QC role should result in less staff burden on the department. 1

As ACM's are usually paid by % complete there are fewer items to final. Still trying to figure out exactly how to do a final audit on D-B contracts.

1 We do not see significant difference here between DB and DBB. We have yet to close out a PPP. 1

Additional staff is needed for verifying as-built drawings, material certifications, and DBE/PW/EEO monitoring.

1 Must use A/E consultants due to legislative staffing level constraints. 1

It is very similar to design bid build with the exception of additional warranty requirements and the DB team is producing the as-built.

1

1

Not really a lot of difference if the project has kept up on documentation throughout construction. Having staff knowledgeable about requirements for ACM-specific project closeout.



106 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods • Figure B24 shows whether or not agencies have manual or documents that specifically describe

the staffing procedures to be used for ACM projects. The majority of the agencies do not have manuals/documents describing the staffing procedures for ACM projects.

16%

84%

Yes

No

Fig B24. Manuals/documents describing staffing procedures for ACMs.

• Table B9 shows lesson learned by the agencies in staffing practices to implement ACM proj-

ects obtained from the open-ended question in the survey. Table B9. ACM staffing lessons learned Count

Lesson Learned in Staffing Practices

1

Get construction staff involved early in the process (preconstruction) so they understand the projects and decisions made.

1

We are too early in the process to be able to provide lessons learned on staffing practices.

1

The key is identify the correct staff for ACM projects. They have to the ability to think outside the DBB world and understand the differences between the various methods. Staff must have the ability to make decisions for the good of the project rather than be legalistic.

1

You need strong and experienced project personnel.

1

Manuals are needed. Response times are critical and potentially could require additional staff. Dedicated staff to facilitate the processes is critical.

1

TIMING! The Agency must be conscious of timing delivery of projects. Saturating the industry and agency staff is NOT conducive to success.

1

Good to have staff that is or can be rounded with both design and construction, and environmental. Staff should have ability to truly foster partnership and discourage adversarial relationships. Staff should be "bridge builders" to bring agency SMEs along with ACM approach: it is usually a foreign concept and some can be resistant to change. Focusing staff on providing both project management and SME discipline engagement positively pays off for the agency. Respect for others perspective is important. Creating the change that is needed in order to be successful is a key success trait. Ability to foster paradigm shift toward beneficial concepts. Ability to be decisive and adjust temperament professionally to be appropriate for the occasion. Ability to keep calm amid enormous pressure and expectations is a needed characteristic. Delegation of authority is critical, especially for Major Projects.



Aggregated Survey Results 107 Table B9. (Continued). Count

Lesson Learned in Staffing Practices

1

Staff needs to be flexible and responsive to the fast pace of design−build.

1

We formed a part-time innovative contracting team to help review RFPs, project requirements, general contract conditions, etc.

1

Parties that will be involved with the project need to be on board at the very start and should follow the project throughout the procurement. The staff needs to remain open to the contracting process and able to keep personal preferences out of the contract.

1

Many lessons learned. The most successful model is to have a dedicated project team with leadership complementary of each other - Project Director and the Deputy Project Director having different disciplines (Construction and Design). This team also has support staff of Project Engineers (generally 3-5) dedicated to the project. We have experimented with other variations of this using support staff that are not dedicated. We are currently experimenting Area Team involvement in Project Delivery with mixed results.

1

We rely heavily on consultant services to provide us agile staffing solutions to meet the varying needs of the ACM projects.

1

If you don't have enough quantity for statistical verification, then duplication efforts for inspection are considerable.

1

Need better understanding of the contract quality management plan and roles and responsibilities with material testing. Need same number of field staff as similarly sized D-B-B contracts.

1

It can be a challenge to attract those individuals to a high paced intensive and unique work environment. Moreover, once you attract those individuals, your program must be mature enough to ensure that there is always ample workload to keep these high performers interested.

1

The Department has identified a stronger correlation between project staffing and project cost as opposed to project staffing and ACM.

1

ACM does not necessarily mean lower cost - as some may think Adopting Contractor innovations that are in contrast to standards are at time contentious - breaking status quo.

1

Strong staffing with team player, exceptional attitudes, open to change greatly helps ACM projects success.

1

An experienced staff is needed to develop and deliver a D-B project.

1

Need project development experience, not just people with construction-only backgrounds.

1

PM is key through all phases. Has to have knowledge of all phases (procurement, D-B, O and M), has to know how to manage consultants. Understands who owns what risk, and not take back risk. Importance of record keeping.

1

Personality type and experience are important in selecting staff for these project. Typically, outside staff are hired to perform work on these projects.

1

Owner must have qualified staff with appropriate experience to manage these contracts; it’s not for everyone!

1

More emphasis on training internally within the DOT. The specialists in DB/P3 know what the process looks like and what needs to happen; however, they sometimes fail to spend time upfront to fully brief the other non-D-B/P3 DOT professionals critical to the process (e.g. geo-tech, hazardous material managers, environmental, right of way). This is time well spent to get your advisers up to speed so they can modify their normal approaches to fit that needed by D-B/P3 project development and procurement.

1

Get construction staff involved early in the process (preconstruction) so they understand the projects and decisions made.

1

We are too early in the process to be able to provide lessons learned on staffing practices.



APPENDIX C

Case Example Questionnaire

The goal of this synthesis is to document current practices of organization and staffing needs for Alternative Contracting Method (ACM) projects. The synthesis will focus on three main ACMs: Design-Build (D-B), Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), and Public Private Partnership (P3). The objectives of the case study are to: (1) supplement and validate the findings from the survey; (2) obtain specific process examples of staffing practices for ACM projects; (3) identify examples of staffing needs and organizational structures to deliver ACM projects; (4) document unique staffing issues for the primary delivery methods (e.g., CM/GC, D-B, and P3); and (5) identify common barriers and document lessons learned of staffing practices throughout the ACM project lifecycle. AGENCY: _____________________________________________ INTERVIEWEE: _________________________________________ TIME AND DATE: _______________________________________

A. General Information and Alternative Contracting Methods (ACMs) 1. What ACMs are used in your agency? D-B

CM/GC

P3

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

2. What are the driving forces for using ACMs in your agency? 3. What point of the project development process does your agency decide to use ACMs instead of traditional D-B-B? Please explain the reasons behind the decision.

B. Organizational Structure for ACMs 4. Which organizational structure does your agency use for delivering ACM projects? –– Centralized structure (e.g., central procurement and administration/execution) � If used, how many people are often in the structure? What are their expertise/skill sets? –– Decentralized structure (e.g., decentral procurement and administration/execution) � If used, what kinds of support does the structure receive from the central office?



Case Example Questionnaire 109

–– Combined structure (e.g., central procurement with decentral administration/execution) � If used, please explain the typical process of delivering ACM projects. 5. What are typical benefits and challenges of the organizational structure used for ACMs in your agency? 6. Does your agency have a dedicated ACM office/unit to champion ACMs? Please explain.

C. Staffing Needs and Staffing Issues for ACM Projects 7. How does your agency identify proper staff for ACM projects? 8. Who performs quality assurance activities on your agency’s ACM projects? Who has the majority responsibility for quality assurance in ACM projects? Please discuss separately with each method (D-B, CM/GC, or P3) if necessary. 9. How do ACMs influence your agency’s in-house engineers/professional engineering workforce? Please discuss separately with each method (D-B, CM/GC, or P3) if necessary. For example, implementing ACMs • Does not change the roles of in-house engineers, but increases their amount of work. • Does not change the roles of in-house engineers, but decreases their amount of work. • Changes the roles of in-house engineers, and increases their amount of work • Changes the roles of in-house engineers, and decreases their amount of work • Changes the roles of in-house engineers, and does not change their amount of work • No impact 10. Does your agency have more in-house engineers today than prior to the use of ACMs? Please discuss separately with each method (D-B, CM/GC, or P3). 11. Does your agency have issues of competition with industry to retain core staff/technical expertise for ACMs (e.g., a loss in staff to private industry due to pay differences)? Please explain. 12. How often does your agency utilize consultants for implementing ACMs? Does your agency have ACM program management that involves consultants? What are potential benefits and main concerns with outsourcing? 13. How does your agency staff P3 projects in the maintenance and operation phase? 14. What are the main difference in staffing needs between ACMs and traditional D-B-B at the project closeout phase?




D. Skill Sets and Training for ACM Projects 15. What are the typical skill sets required for the success of ACMs? Are these skill sets different among D-B, CM/GC, and P3? Please explain. Knowledge and Skill Sets

In-house Staff D-B

CM/GC

Outsourced Staff P3 D-B

CM/GC

P3

Ability to analyze constructability reviews and project phasing Excellent written and oral communication skills Familiar with federal transportation project finance structuring Knowledge of change management Knowledge of contract admin, finance, and cost management Knowledge of highway construction means and methods Knowledge of project delivery and procurement procedure Knowledge of quality assurance principles for ACMs Leadership and ability to coordinate other staff Risk identification and analysis skills Strong background in preconstruction process and planning Strong partnering and team-building skills Understanding of federal and state environmental approvals Understanding of project management principles

16. Does your agency rely on consultants for certain recurring tasks that require specific skill sets for ACMs? 17. Please explain the typical training process/components for ACMs in your agency (e.g., use of consultants, formal ACM training for DOT staff). Does your agency provide training for the design and construction industry partners on ACMs? 18. Does your agency provide any specialized training for ACMs as well as negotiating skills? 19. What types of training programs are used in your agency to train your existing staff and new hires for implementing ACMs? Does your agency provide ongoing training for the replacement staff?

E. Lessons Learned 20. What lessoned learned would you share with other agencies about staffing needs and organizational structure for implementing ACMs? 21. What are effective practices of staffing utilization for ACM projects? What critical factors related to staffing needs that need to be considered to successfully deliver ACM projects or programs?



APPENDIX D

Research Needs Statement Draft

I. Problem Title Guidebook on Staffing Skill Sets and Knowledge for Alternative Contracting Methods

II. Research Problem Statement State departments of transportation (DOTs) across the country increasingly use alternative contracting methods (ACMs) in addition to the traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) approach to deliver transportation projects and programs. The primary ACMs include design–build (D-B), construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), public–private partnerships (P3), and other innovative techniques [e.g., alternative technical concepts (ATC), A+B or Cost + Time contracting, a best-value approach to D-B-B projects, and others]. In fact, ACMs are a significant part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Every Day Counts Initiative because they are seen as tools that can be used to improve transportation projects and programs. Staffing needs and skill sets for traditional Design-Bid-Build (D-B-B) projects are well established. State DOTs have historically employed and maintained substantial levels of technical and administrative staff to perform design and construction activities for their projects. However, the staffing needs, skill sets, and organizational structure for ACM projects have not been adequately understood although they are critical to the success of implementing ACM projects and programs. NCHRP Synthesis 518: Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods highlighted that state DOTs are faced with more complex decision making regarding appropriate levels and mix of staffing for their ACM projects. The staffing needs for ACMs vary widely among DOTs and are affected by project and program size and type, staffing availability, organizational structure preferences, and ACM selection processes among other factors. There is a need for developing a formal process and procedure to help state DOTs effectively and efficiently select “right” people for the ACM project team. The proposed research should address at least the following questions: • How can state DOTs provide an effective and efficient staff level for successfully delivering

their ACM projects? • How do staffing needs vary on the project level associated with different types of organiza-

tional structures (centralized, decentralized, and combined)? • What are the critical skill sets and knowledge that agency staff should have to administer and

manage ACM projects? Do these skill sets and knowledge domains vary for primary ACMs (e.g., D-B, CM/GC, and P3)? What are strategies and approaches that state DOTs should use to determine “right” people for their ACM project teams? 111 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.


112 Staffing for Alternative Contracting Methods • How do state DOTs introduce new/junior staff to ACMs? What type of trainings are needed

to promote ACMs? • How do state DOTs develop and maintain the core workforce for ACMs?

III. Research Objectives and Tasks The main objective of the proposed research is to develop a process and guidelines to assist state DOTs to effectively and efficiently plan and develop a sustainable core workforce for successfully implementing ACMs. Proposed tasks to accomplish this objective are as follows: Task 1: Conduct a literature search to review past studies on staffing practices in transportation agencies and other industries. Task 2: Select a representative set of highway agencies with the extensive experience in use of ACMs that can be studied in depth to identify both the effective staffing practices, challenges, and lessons learned. Task 3: Prepare a white paper to document the findings from Tasks 1 and 2. Task 4: Prepare a research work plan that describes the details of the research methodology and approach to identifying and verifying the effective practices and developing conclusions. Task 5: Execute the research work plan and prepare an interim research report that articulates the data collection and analysis as well as emerging conclusions, effective practices, lessons learned, and a proposed outline for the guidebook; case study report; and draft languages. Task 6: Prepare the draft guidebook on staffing practices, skill sets, and knowledge for ACM projects. Incorporate review comments as required, and validate the guidebook’s efficacy with case study DOTs. Task 7: Publishing the final guidebook and a final research report that details the full results of the research.

IV. Sponsoring Committee AFH15, Project Delivery Methods AFH10, Construction Management

V. Estimate of Problem Funding and Research Period Recommended Funding: Recommended funding for the project from $300,000 to $500,000. Research Period: It is estimated that 24–36 months will be required to perform the research.

VI. Urgency, Potential Payoff, and Implementation Proper staffing levels on ACM projects are essential. State DOTs and other agencies have expended a large portion of their project budget on staffing. Efficient use of staffing protects this important portion of the project budget. Further, importantly, the agency staff protects the public welfare. It is difficult to quantify the overall scope of completed or in-process ACMs, but that figure easily exceeds $100 billion. Inadequate or ineffective agency staffing on project portfolios of this magnitude could result in inefficient use of public funds for the project development and cost the public a significant amount of resources during the project’s life due to, for example, higher maintenance costs related to lower quality.



Research Needs Statement Draft 113

The findings from NCHRP Synthesis 518 showed that the staff competency required for the traditional D-B-B approach does not directly apply to the implementation of ACMs. The successful implementation of ACM projects often requires staff with different skill sets, knowledge domain, and competencies. The intent of this project is to furnish a uniform set of guidelines for planning efficient and effective staffing on ACMs. The final deliverable potentially will be a guidebook to help state DOTs establish an effective and efficient staffing level for their ACM projects. The guidelines will become available through the TRB/NCHRP libraries and websites.

VII. Persons Developing the Problem Dan Tran, University of Kansas Douglas Gransberg, Iowa State University Chris Harper, Louisiana State University Others to be added as appropriate

VIII. Problem Monitor TBD









Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A AAAE AASHO AASHTO ACI–NA ACRP ADA APTA ASCE ASME ASTM ATA CTAA CTBSSP DHS DOE EPA FAA FAST FHWA FMCSA FRA FTA HMCRP IEEE ISTEA ITE MAP-21 NASA NASAO NCFRP NCHRP NHTSA NTSB PHMSA RITA SAE SAFETEA-LU TCRP TDC TEA-21 TRB TSA U.S.DOT

Airlines for America American Association of Airport Executives American Association of State Highway Officials American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Airports Council International–North America Airport Cooperative Research Program Americans with Disabilities Act American Public Transportation Association American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials American Trucking Associations Community Transportation Association of America Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program Department of Homeland Security Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency Federal Aviation Administration Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) Federal Highway Administration Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Association of State Aviation Officials National Cooperative Freight Research Program National Cooperative Highway Research Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Transportation Safety Board Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Research and Innovative Technology Administration Society of Automotive Engineers Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) Transit Cooperative Research Program Transit Development Corporation Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) Transportation Research Board Transportation Security Administration United States Department of Transportation



TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD


500 Fifth Street, NW

PAID

9 780309 390491

NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE

COLUMBIA, MD PERMIT NO. 88

90000

Washington, DC 20001

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

ISBN: 978-0-309-39049-1