Outline

1.
2.

Project Delivery Process

3.
4.
5.

Bruce Johnson, P.E.

State Bridge Engineer
Oregon Department of Transportation

Introduction
Planning
Design (through DAP)
Break
Design (DAP through PS&E)
Bid and Award
Construction
Summary
2

February 1, 2010

Project Delivery Process

Duration of each phase

Plan: 0-10 years

Design: 3 months - 10 years
Build: 6 months - 4 years
Operate/Maintain: 10-100+ years

Preservation projects, low duration is for pave-only

Other factors impacting duration

Project location
Projects in urban locations have more stakeholders
(e.g. city government, neighborhoods)
Require great care in design and in construction
planning (get in, get it done, get out)

Stakeholder involvement
State & local elected officials, local & regional
governments, Regional/District offices
Nine state agencies, eighteen federal agencies, 9
federal recognized tribes
Citizen groups and individual citizens, business
organizations

Project Delivery
Module 1
Planning and Program Development

Planning

How projects
are identified,
scoped and
approved
Management
systems
IAMPs
Refinement
plans
Stakeholder
Involvement

What is Transportation Planning?

1. Monitoring existing conditions;
2. Forecasting future growth by area and corridor;
3. Identifying current and future needs and analyzing
various transportation improvement strategies to address
those needs;
4. Developing plans of alternative solutions;
5. Estimating the impact of those solutions
6. Developing a financial plan.

Duration 0-10 years

MPO and Local Transportation

Planning Components

How projects are identified,

scoped and approved
Transportation
Planning Studies
Management
Systems
Scoping
STIP Approval
Public Input

Transportation
Planning

Management
System

Scoping

Transportation System Plans

Regional Transportation Plans
Refinement Plans
Transportation Facility Plans

STIP

Approval

Transportation System Plans

(TSPs)

Regional Transportation
Plans (RTPs)

Approval by Local Government

States may assist Locals with funding
and involvement in process
Stakeholder Involvement
Primarily at local level
Risks
Plans are not fiscally constrained.
Projects not fully prioritized.

Official, mandated multimodal

transportation plan for metropolitan
areas over 50,000 in population
Considerable autonomy State has
one seat at the table
Financially Constrained Project List
All this work gets used in NEPA

TSPs & RTPs vs. Transportation

Improvement Plans (TIPs)
TSPs and RTPs typically cover a
20- year period
TSPs identify gap between needs and
anticipated revenue, but are not
fiscally constrained
RTPs identify gap between needs and
anticipated revenue, but are fiscally
constrained
TIPs cover a four-year period
TIPs must be constrained to
anticipated revenue

Transportation Facility Plans

Establish management objectives, tools,
and standards for the State facility
Provide foundation for local plan
amendments, Area Commission support,
and STIP development

Transportation Planning
Coordination
Establish local jurisdiction and public
support for transportation solutions
and management actions
Integrate local land use and
transportation plans. Establish state
and local plan consistency (TSP to
STP and Statewide Modal Plans)
Develop local plan policies and code
changes to support state projects
and facility management objectives

Refinement Planning
Complex Issues requiring more detail than
system planning
Resolve issues that are not fully addressed
in TSPs
Process allows greater detail of problem
identification and solution
recommendation
Can build broader community support
Work is used in NEPA

Transportation Facility Plans

Establish specific project or solution
direction and management strategies
Interchange Area Management Plans
(IAMP)
Access Management Plans (AMP)
Expressway Management Plan (EMP)
Approved by both Local Government
and State
Support subsequent environmental
documentation and project delivery

Management Systems
Management Systems track the location
and condition of transportation assets
The primary management systems used
in program development cover Bridges,
Pavements and Safety
Management systems are also used or
are in development for operations
(congestion), culverts, retaining walls,
slides and other features

Project Scoping

Project Prioritization
Transportation Commission (TC) sets funding
allocations
TC sets program criteria and goals
Planning and management systems list potential
projects across state
Projects from Management Systems primarily
prioritized by regions with stakeholder input
where appropriate
Modernization projects prioritized by Area
Commissions on Transportation
According to STIP criteria

Region teams scope projects

Scoping Performance KPM #23

Projects vs Estimate
100%

At or Below Estimate

Target

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

At or Below Estimate

73% 48% 56%

Target

80% 80% 80% 80%

2013-15 STIP Schedule

Funding Allocations October 2009

Early Public Input Thru December 2009
Project Priorities December 2009
Scoping January May 2010
Draft STIP August 2010
Public Review Thru April 2011
STIP Approval June 2012

Performed by regions (in-house or

outsourced)
Completed each STIP update cycle by a
multi-disciplinary team
Develops rough project cost estimates
Documents project plan in the project
prospectus
More projects are scoped than end up in
the STIP
Projects constrained to available funds
regionally and statewide

Developing the STIP

STIP is the document identifying high level
scope, construction year and funding
Draft STIP compiled for public review
TC adjusts as necessary
Air quality conformity
Final Region review
TC & FHWA/FTA approval
Process occurs every two years

STIP and Financial Plan

STIP is the program and scheduling
document identifying scope and
programmed amounts
Financial Plan is the internal accounting
journal for all projects each region
manages its own plan.
Financial Plan accounts for actual project
obligations and authorizations such as
increased ROW and bid prices.

Stakeholder Involvement
Required throughout process
Stakeholder Groups Can Include:

Area Commission on Transportation

Citizen Advisory Committees
Technical Advisory Committees
Oversight Teams
Natural Resource Agencies

Targeted Outreach
Open House / Public Meetings

Stakeholder Involvement
Other Techniques
Stakeholder involvement is front loaded
during planning, which adds time and can
be costly, but results in projects that are
better integrated into surrounding
communities and have less chance of
being challenged during design or formal
environmental process.

Management System Cost

Oregon Example

Transportation Planning Cost

The transportation long-range planning
programs within the regions provide the
planning work necessary to move
projects into project delivery however
sometimes planning functions are
covered by project budget
Average transportation long-range
planning expenditures are $6.9 M per
year over the past 6 years

Bridge
Pavement
Safety

$4.5 M*
$0.5 M
$0.5 M

All costs are average annual costs

* Includes Bridge Inspection and Load Rating

STIP Scoping Cost

Regions are responsible for scoping
projects for the STIP
Regions generally scope more projects
than actually end up in the STIP
Average cost for STIP scoping is $1.8M
per year over the past 6 years

Costs
Phase

Modernization

Bridge

Planning/Scoping

9.1%

5.2%

Preservation Safety/Ops
0.4%

3.0%

9.1%

5.2%

0.4%

3.0%

Design
RoW / Utility
Relocation
Bid & Award
Construction
Engineering
Construction
Total (%)

What is Success for Planning?

Program development meets Commission
criteria and goals
Problem identification supported by
communitys vision
Help establish priorities
Help set reasonable performance
expectations
Reduce duplication and alternatives in
NEPA process
Planning decisions are relied upon in
Project Delivery

Continuous Improvement
Involve design office, area, district in
system and project planning processes
Involve planners in Project Delivery to
ensure planning commitments are met
Training Planning for non-planners
Leadership teams integration Planning
Business Line Team and Project Delivery
Business Line Team
Asset Management: Expand the use of
management systems to assets other
than bridges, pavements and safety

Continuous Improvement
Future

Refining STIP Criteria

Linking Planning Environmental Process
(LPEP)

Discussion

Project Delivery
Module 2
Design (Kick-off through Design
Acceptance Package (DAP))
Project Development

Design

Project Delivery

(Kick-off through Design Acceptance Milestone )

Project approved thru STIP

Projects handoff to Area Managers and
Project Development Team (PDT) for
Project Development (environmental
study, preliminary design, ROW
acquisition, and final design) through
PS&E

DAP Criteria
NEPA
Stakeholder Number & Types
Involvement of Deliverables
Preliminary
Approvals
Design

Starting a Project Design

Assign Project Team Leader

Identify Project Team
Map out process for project development
Review and confirm available information
- Scoping Document
- Project Prospectus
- Refinement Plans
- Draft project schedule
- Project Funding

Key Factors driving duration of

Project Development
Project location
Public & stakeholder involvement
Work Type
NEPA
Right of Way
(Impacts during 2nd phase of
project development)

Stakeholder Involvement

Project Location
Project Location
Projects in urban locations have more
stakeholders (e.g. city government,
neighborhoods)
Require great care in design and in
construction planning (get in, get it
done, get out)

Stakeholder Involvement
State & local elected officials, local &
regional governments,
Areas/Districts, Economic
Revitalization Teams
Nine state agencies, eighteen federal
agencies, nine federally recognized
tribes
Citizen Advisory Committees,
stakeholder groups, business
organizations

Work Type

Primary work types count & volume

# of projects by work type
Amount in Millions

Modernization
Bridge

# of projects by work type

$76

Operations
(73)

Operations (73)

Preservation (101)

$534

Bridge (106)

Preservation (101)

Preservation

$522

Modernization (67)

Modernization (67)

Bridge (106)

Safety (63)

Safety (63)

Safety and Operations

$114

$394

Note: Pie slices which have been pulled out represent OTIA and Earmarks.

Modernization Projects

Bridge Projects

Safety Projects

Preservation Projects

Operations Projects

Note: Pie slices which have been pulled out represent OTIA and Earmarks.

Why is the work type important?

Modernization and complex bridge
projects take more time
Greater complexity in design, more
tasks to design
A modernization project can typically take a year
or more in design than a preservation project, all
other things being equal.

What is NEPA?
NEPA requires a rigorous process,
including public involvement and scientific
analysis in order to reach an
environmentally informed decision.
NEPA requires full disclosure about
major actions taken by Federal agencies,
including alternatives to the actions,
impacts, and possible mitigation.

What is NEPA?
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
Goals include avoiding, minimizing or mitigating
the impact to socioeconomic, natural, and
cultural resources by
Ensuring consideration of environmental
impacts prior to taking action
Preventing or mitigating damage to the
environment,
Enhancing the health and welfare of people,
Enriching understanding of natural resources
important to the nation
Iterative Process
Full public disclosure

NEPA Areas of Concern

Socioeconomic
(noise, visual, environmental justice)
Title VI, Civil Rights Act 1964

Natural environment
(flora, fauna, wetlands, endangered
species, air quality, water quality)
Section 404, Clean Water Act

Cultural resources
(archaeological, historic, parks)
Section 4 (f) & 6(f), Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965

NEPA Classes of Actions

Class 1 Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) Record of Decision
There will be an environmental impact

Class 2 Categorical Exclusion (CatEx)

No significant environmental impacts anticipated

Class 3 Environmental Assessment (EA)

Finding of No Significant Impact
or elevate to an EIS
Uncertain if there is an environmental impact

Environmental Classification
Class 1 Environmental
Impact Statement

1
66

Class 2 Categorical
Exclusion
Programmatic Exclusion

15
211

Class 3 Environmental
Assessment

26
Undetermined

What Determines NEPA

Classification?
Environmental scoping to determine:
Context and intensity of the proposed
action and potential impacts
Applicable environmental regulations
and implications
Potential controversy
Overall complexity

Why is Environmental Class

important?
Class 1 and Class 3 projects require a
significant amount of study and many
tasks before a preferred concept design
can be selected and detailed design
work can proceed.
Class 1 (EIS) NEPA processes can add 3-5 years or
more to project development, and
Class 3 (EA) NEPA processes can add 2-3 years

Record of Decision (ROD)

Categorical Exclusions (CatEx)

Class 1 EIS

Class 2

A Record of Decision (ROD) is the federal

environmental decision document, issued
by FHWA, which:
Explains the reasons for the project decision,
Summarizes any mitigation measures that will
be incorporated in the project, and
Documents any required section 4(f) approval

Record of Decision completes the NEPA

process for Class 1 projects

CatEx projects are exempt from the requirement

to prepare an EA or an EIS, all other applicable
environmental regulations must be complied
with, and
Documentation supporting the CatEx is required
Impacts must be avoided
Unavoidable impacts must be minimized
Measures to mitigate unavoidable adverse
impacts must be incorporated

Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI)
Class 3, EA
Federal Environmental Review Decision
Document Issued by FHWA
Documents why the proposed action will
not have significant Impacts
Outlines reasons why EIS-level analysis is
NOT required
FONSI attached to revised EA
Completes NEPA Process

EIS Timeline & Decision Points

NEPA Deliverables

Can include:
Technical reports including mitigation
plans
Project alternatives
Traffic modeling
Draft document and public hearing
Recommended alternative
Land Use actions/decisions
Final environmental document
FONSI or ROD
MOA for mitigation agreements

OR Example - Collaborative Environmental

& Transportation Agreement for Streamlining
CETAS was signed by
Oregons state and federal
transportation and
environmental agencies in
2001 to support environmental
stewardship and advance
procedural improvements to
streamline the environmental
review process for ODOTs
major transportation projects

PE Design Deliverables - PDT

Field surveys, mapping

Engineering reports (hydraulics, geotechnical)
Pavement design
Sign, signal,& illumination designs
Preliminary Roadway design
Access Mgmt. Strategy & Official Project Access
List
Preliminary R/W maps
Interchange Area Management Plans*
Intergovernmental Agreements
Bridge TS&L

Design Acceptance
Package (DAP)
Major decision point. Project go/no go to
final design
Design footprint finalized for R/W,
environmental actions
All elements included
Project team agrees to be bound by
footprint
Area Manager, Design Manager certify
Start Permit Process

STIP Financial Plan

Each region and Program manages its
own STIP financial plan and is
accountable for balancing its plan
- Region Mod, Bridge, Preservation,
Safety
Financial Plan includes all project costs:
PE, R/W, utilities, construction
obligations, authorizations and changes
in project costs

Continuous Improvement
Initiatives
Improve environmental scoping
methods
Annual reporting to regulatory agencies
& FHWA (TAC2)
Develop/Expand Mitigation Banking
Programs (include other resources)
Expand use of performance standards
Develop new programmatic
agreements with regulatory agencies

Process Challenges
Right sizing public & stakeholder
involvement
Resource challenges (design, drafting,
technical specialties, environmental)
FHWA regulatory oversight role
inconsistencies

Streamlined Processes
Time Reductions

Project Team approach

Prospectus
Expanded Part III of the prospectus
Scoping Documents
Mitigation Banking
Programmatic Permits
Environmental Baseline Reports
Improved Environmental Compliance

Continuous Improvement
Initiatives
Batch projects by similar type:

Bridge replacements
Culvert replacements
Interchanges (Rural Category &
Urban Category)
Preservation

Process Challenges
CAT-EX Environmental Sign-off
FHWA requires no final design or ROW
purchase with federal dollars until permits
are in-hand, all environmental work
complete
States can cover ROW purchase with state
funds with state funds being used as
credited for state match
Will add up to one year to project
development for some Class 2 projects

Discussion / Break

Project Delivery
Module 3
Project Delivery Process
Modules 3, 4, & 5
Bruce Johnson, P.E.

Design
(Design Acceptance Package (DAP) through
Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E))

State Bridge Engineer

Oregon Department of Transportation

February 1, 2010

Design
(Design Acceptance Package (DAP) through Plans,
Specifications & Estimates (PS&E))

Environmental permitting
Right of Way
Construction (PS&E)
documents
Project Delivery methods
Mobility
Stakeholder involvement

Design Acceptance Package

(DAP) Milestone
Establishes the project footprint for:
Pens down (avoid rework)
Environmental permitting (if needed)
Right-of-way acquisition (if needed)

Confirms readiness to develop

construction contract documents
Concurrence of project stakeholders

Design (DAP PS&E)

ProcessesOverview

Design (DAP PS&E)

RIGHT-OF-WAY Timeline (1-2 years)
Finalize Right of Way Maps and Descriptions
DAP

Environmental (EIS/EA) complete, obtain permits

Critical Path (6-18 months)
Right-of-Way
Critical path (1-2+ Years)
Design Phase
Timeline 1-2 Years (Class 2, DAP-PS&E)
Permits and Right of Way are now sequential,
preliminary design is concurrent

FHWA Authorization for R/W Acquisitions

Appraisals
Negotiations with Property Owners
Relocation Issues (if necessary)
Condemnation (no agreement) to possession
PS&E

Right of Way Certification at PS&E

Design (DAP PS&E)

Plans for Construction

Design (DAP PS&E)

DESIGN Timeline (typically 1-2 yrs after DAP)
Quality Control
Preliminary Plans
75% Complete

Advanced Plans
95% Complete

Final Plans
100% Complete

PS&E

Plans, Specifications, Estimates (PS&E)

Documents

Roadway Plans
Bridge Plans
Traffic Structures Plans
Retaining Wall Plans
Soundwall Plans
Material Source and Disposal
Site Plans
Roadside Development Plans
Geotechnical Plans
Hazardous Materials Plans
Wetland Mitigation Plans
Erosion Control Plans
Hydraulic Plans
Water Quality and Detention
Plans
Traffic Control Plans

Design (DAP PS&E)

Project Team Approach
Traditional process - design was more
sequential, requiring considerable rework
New process - project teams include all
engineering and other disciplines working
concurrently
Construction and maintenance included in
project teams

Design (DAP PS&E)

Environmental Permitting
Complexities
20+
Environmental
disciplines
10+ Regulatory &
local agencies
Continual
stakeholder
involvement

Sign Plans
Striping Plans
Signal Plans
Illumination Plans
Construction Cost Estimate
Construction Schedule
Special Provisions
Utility Conflict List
Constructability Review
Value Engineering Study
Insurance Risk Assessment
Access Management
PS&E Submittal Plan Review
Assemble and Submit Final
PS&E to Office of Pre-Letting
Bidding Package

Design (DAP PS&E)

Right of Way Complexities
Critical path (can
take 1-2+ years)
Sensitive
relationships with
property owners &
public
Property owner
rights

Phase

Modernization Bridge

Preservation

Safety/
Ops

Planning

9.1%

5.2%

0.4%

3.0%

Design

9.1%

5.4%

6.7%

13.0%

RoW / Utility
Relocation

3.4%

1.3%

1.6%

4.5%

21.6%

11.9%

8.7%

20.5%

Bid & Award

Construction
Engineering
Construction
Total (%)
* State projects only
* Only primary work types included
* Based on projects 2nd noted between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2007 (completed projects)
* 3 Design/Build projects excluded
* Projects with unusual expenditure patterns excluded (17 projects)

Costs

* Right of way expenditures uncommonly low due to specific projects included in this report (largest projects completed were in rural areas or
areas that did not involve significant right of way expenses.

Success for Project Delivery is:

Minimize contract addenda
Plans that are

Permittable
Biddable
Buildable
Maintainable
Supported by the community

Success for Project Delivery is:

DAP Reduce need for design changes
DAP (established footprint) vs
preliminary plans
Established Liaison Program
Alternative contracting methods and
incentives are used frequently to save
time
CMGC, D/B, incentive/disincentive
specification

Process Challenges
Unforeseen issues, scope changes,
new information resulting in
design modification
DAP completeness issues
Environmental Approval prior to
ROW and Final Design for Class 2
projects
Regulatory expectations are
subject to change

Success for Project Delivery is:

Mobility is always considered at the
project and corridor level, process is
working well
ROW Appropriate Disputes Resolution
program (independent mediators)
RWDMS document management
system and acquisition process
streamlining (phase 1)

Success for Project Delivery is:

Clear roles and responsibilities

Leadership Teams
Better, timelier communications:
Operational notices, technical bulletins,
documented procedures
Decentralization (SASC)
Cradle-to-grave management
Focus on performance measures
OTIA III
Alternative Delivery business models
Judicious selection of technology
improvements.

Discussion

Bid & Award

Project Delivery
Module 4

PS&E Review
Estimate
Advertisement
Procurement

Award
Stakeholder
Involvement
Small Contracting

Bid & Award the Construction Contract

PS&E Review/Estimate
Office of Project Letting - Review of
project package from region PDT
PS&E checklist
Final engineers cost estimate
Confidential

Final estimate lines up with project

funding

Advertisement
Printing state printer (2 weeks)
Copy of ad for each project to be bid for
publication to Daily Journal of Commerce
Hard copy & electronic
Ad posted on Procurement Office Website
and Bid Express
Communication with bidders exclusively
through Procurement Office and Project
Managers Office

PS&E Review/Estimate
Approval to advertise
Provide contract documents to OPO
and Project Managers Office
PS&E review process and final
engineers estimate completed in 2
weeks (5 weeks if full federal oversight
required)

Procurement
Bid opening
Bid review for responsiveness and
responsibility
Bid analysis to determine if award or
rejection is in the best interest of the
public
Recommendation to award or reject

Construction Authorization

Procurement

Prepared by Procurement Office

Provide overview of costs that will be incurred
Informational items
Engineers estimate
Name of low bidder
Funding deposits received from others
Construction authorization
Lowest responsive bid
Construction engineering budget
Contingencies
Anticipated items

Notice of intent to award

3 day timeframe for protest filing
Construction authorization
Review and execution of contract

Final Approval

Award

Chief Engineer
Deputy Director
Transportation
Commission
FHWA
Notice to
Proceed

Contract executed within 57 days of bid

opening
2005
99% executed within 57 days
2006
91% executed within 57 days
2007
98% executed within 57 days
2008
95% executed within 57 days
Most are executed in 40 days or less

Timeframes
PS&E to bid opening - 45 days to 80
days
Includes advertisement. Approximately 35 weeks.

Bid opening to notice to proceed 57

days
Bid and award (Total) 137 days (20
weeks) maximum

Reasons for delay

Protest
Lawsuit
High bid price (analysis/justification)
Local agency project budget approval
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goal
compliance
Receipt of Insurance Certificate

Stakeholders
(construction contractors)
Coordination via Association of
General Contractors
Key issues
Bid advertising
Rejection of bids
Protest filings

Costs
Modernization

Bridge

Planning

Phase

9.1%

5.2%

Preservation Safety/Ops
0.4%

3.0%

Design

9.1%

5.4%

6.7%

13.0%

RoW / Utility
Relocation

3.4%

1.3%

1.6%

4.5%

Bid & Award

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.8%

21.7%

12.0%

8.9%

21.3%

Construction
Engineering
Construction
Total (%)

Success for Project Delivery is:

Electronic bidding (Bid Express)

Contractors web portal
Streamlined PS&E review phase
Close coordination on bid planning with
special projects
PS&E metrics
PS&E checklist

Success for Project Delivery is:

Small Contracting
Commitment to diversity
9th Circuit ruling impacts
Disparity study (African American /
Asian)
FHWS waiver
Assistance for small business to get
involved with electronic bidding

Success for Project Delivery is:

Electronic bid document distribution
Continue to streamline process from
PS&E submission to award for small
projects
Procurement Office procurement vs
region procurement
Small contracting web presence

Discussion

Construction

Project Delivery
Module 5

Construction and Construction Management

Contract management
Quality Assurance
Environmental
Compliance
Work Force Monitoring
Dispute/Claims
resolution process
Payment
Final documentation
Stakeholder
Involvement
Duration: 6 months 4 years

Construction Begins

Contractor supplies materials and

performs work according to contract
and plans for construction
Agency makes sure the contractor
completes work as contracted

Contract Management
Inspectors / Testers
What they do
Inspectors assigned to monitor and
document progress
h1
Monitor quality, quantity, workmanship
Central Materials Lab AASHTO
Materials Reference Library - Certified
Materials staff monitor quality of
materials

Contract Management
Project Manager
What they do
Project Manager assigned to administer
each contract
Assure compliance with contract
requirements
Manage contract within construction
authorization
Negotiate changes as necessary
Communicate with stakeholders

Quality Control/Quality Assurance

(QA/QC)
All test equipment and lab facilities
certified by ODOT Central Lab
All testing technicians certified by
ODOT Construction QA Unit
Contractor provides Quality Control
testing at specified frequencies.
ODOT Region Construction QA staff
verify contractor results on random
basis.

Slide 41
h1

need to spell out AMRL....

hwye77h, 11/4/2008

Quality Control/Quality Assurance

(QA/QC)
Discrepancies must be investigated
and resolved
Dispute resolution testing by Central
Lab
Fabrication Inspection at plant
Central Lab provides specialized
materials testing
Construction Section provides
specialized support

Environmental Compliance
Require contractor submittal of plans
prior to starting work.
Inspectors monitor compliance to
plans and permits daily.
Region Environmental Coordinators
review progress and provide
assistance regularly.
Regulatory Agencies visit projects
occasionally.

Contract Management
Delegated Change Order Authority
- Project Manager
$100,000 & 14 Days
- Area Manager
$250,000 & 30 Days
- Region Manager
$250,000 & 30 Days
- Contract Administration
Engineer/Chief Engineer
Anything above

Contract Management
Other roles in Construction
Office staff to coordinate
documentation and process payment
Construction Section provides
support and statewide consistency.

Work Force Monitoring

Review Contractor submitted payrolls
for compliance to prevailing wage
monthly.
Track progress of Contractor in
meeting:
- Workforce diversity goals
- DBE Participation goals
- Apprenticeship goals

Contract Management
Delegated overrun in Authorization
Authorities
- Project Manager
None
- Area Manager
$250,000
- Region Manager
$500,000
- Oregon Transportation Commission
Unlimited

Payment

Change Order Process

(Approximately 1500 per year)

PM Identifies need for Contract

Change Order (CCO)
PM develops details of CCO with
Engineer of Record and Contractor
PM negotiates cost of CCO
PM gets necessary approvals for CCO
PM executes CCO

Dispute/Claims Resolution Process

PM performs initial evaluation/resolution of
any dispute
Use Third Party Neutral (Non-Binding)
Claim Process:
- PM Review
- Region Level Review
- Agency Level Review
- Arbitration (Less than $25,000)
- Claim Review Board
- Litigation

Construction Program Risks

Material Price Escalation

Changing Field Conditions
Material Availability
Variability in Materials & Workmanship
Outsourcing Construction Engineering

Monthly Estimate by 8th of each month

Progress Payment to Prime by 23rd of each
month
All payments require Quality/Quantity
documentation
Price Adjustments made for:
- Non-specification materials
- Changed work
- Incentive/Disincentives
- Material price escalation (Steel, fuel, asphalt)
Retainage of 2.5% held until final acceptance

Final Documentation & Acceptance

On site work completed

Acceptance of Project
Completed Project
Contact with Motor Carrier on any restrictions

Stakeholder Involvement
Daily communication with Contractor by PM staff.
Frequent communications with effected local
agencies and local businesses.
Frequent communications with effected residences.
Regular contact with impacted regulatory agencies.
Regular contact with impacted utilities and rail
road.
Monthly meetings with Industry to work global
issues.

Costs
Phase

Key Performance Measures

Modernization

Bridge

Planning

9.1%

5.2%

Preservation Safety/Ops
0.4%

3.0%

Design

9.1%

5.4%

6.7%

13.0%

RoW / Utility
Relocation

3.4%

1.3%

1.6%

4.5%

Bid & Award

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.8%

Construction
Engineering

6.7%

6.7%

6.1%

9.1%

Construction

71.6%

81.3%

85.0%

69.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Total (%)

#20 Jobs from Construction Spending

(2004 -10,000
2007 12,500)
#22 Construction Timeliness
(2004 - 77%
2007 69%)
#23 Construction on Budget
(2006 73%
2007 48%)
#24 Certified Businesses
(2004 11.3% 2007 12.9%)

Other Construction Program

Measures
Volume of Contractor Payments
(2002 $251 mil. 2007 - $520 mil)
Unsettled Claims
(2002 - $27 mil.
2007 - $15 mil)
% Authorization Expended
(2002 103.5%
2007 99.8%)
% Construction Engineering
(2002 7.8%
2007 8.1%)

Discussion

Continuous Improvements

Technician Certification Program

Inspector Certification Program
PM Training for ODOT & Consultants
Web Based Contract Payment System
Contractor Evaluations
Change Order Database
Construction section statewide
leadership team

Scan 07-01
Best Practices in Project Delivery Management
Project Management Structure
cohesive, multidisciplinary teams that communicated
well
roles and responsibilities must be clearly understood
effective hand offs
accountability of PMs and technical support units
Risk Management
manage schedule risks by not including projects in the
STIP until they have a Record of Decision (ROD)
reduce project costs through a Practical Design
philosophy

Scan 07-01 Findings Contd

Investment in Geographic Information System (GIS) and Data
Management Tools for Project Delivery
GIS and data management systems were clearly beneficial.
use of visualization software, three-dimensional (3D) animations,
and 360-degree panoramas helps communication to stakeholders
Innovative Construction Contracting
Innovative tools, such as DB, CMGC, and CMAR have benefits:
fewer claims, improved relationships, faster project delivery, better
quality, and better cost control.

Summary
Project Phases
Common Issues
STIP Composition
Complexity and Variation in projects

The right project at the right time at the right cost in the right way.
The right way means do it right the first time, avoid rework, minimize
adverse impacts to business, residents, freight haulers, the traveling
public and the environment. The right way requires you to be riskconscious, process-oriented.

Scan 07-01 Findings Contd

Early and Continuous Community Involvement from Concept
through Construction
In the Best Practices the team observed, community involvement is
not a singular moment but an effort from beginning to end. These
states didnt wait for the media to tell their story; they proactively
give information to the public using long-term tools, such as door-todoor flyers, and contemporary tools, such as YouTube and Twitter.
Delegate responsibility for public communication directly with the
public to the PM.
Uniformly, states with Best Practices in public involvement worked
hard to enhance relationships with outside stakeholders and others
with whom they interacted.