As mentioned above, innovative contracting approaches can also save considerable time. One innovative contracting technique that has been used frequently by public-private partnerships is design-build. There are a number of features of design-build that contribute to the expedited delivery of a transportation project.
As discussed in the section on innovation and savings, design-build allows a collaborative process between those designing the facility and those who will be responsible ultimately for its construction. Under a traditional design-bid-build model the State determines the alignment of the project and the type of project to be built. This preliminary information is then provided to a design firm, which designs the facility according to the State's standards. The State then takes the design, divides the construction work, and solicits bids on individual portions. This approach has long been favored by highway agencies because it was thought to favor price competition and thus lowers the overall cost because project designers are no longer involved at the construction phase. Allowing the designer and builder to work together throughout the process avoids opportunities for miscommunication that inevitably result in delays.
Another time-saving benefit of design-build is that it allows the design to be tailored to the strengths of the construction firm instead of having to develop a design suitable for bidding by multiple firms.[70] From a designer's perspective, traditional procurement places a premium on developing a design to the lowest common denominator in order to maximize the number of bids. Under a design-build model, the designer can develop a design that is both cost and time efficient because it will recognize the strengths of the construction firms involved in the design-build team.
From the owner's perspective, design-build is attractive because the risk associated with both the design and construction of the project rests with the design-build team. When a project fails under traditional procurement, designers can blame contractors for building it poorly and contractors can claim the design was inadequate. The owner gets caught in the middle and projects can be delayed. Design-build avoids this finger pointing and the potential litigation that can follow. Transferring responsibility for quality and delivery to the design-build team can also significantly reduce the number of change orders in a project and the time and effort it takes to handle them.
There are many examples of design-bid contracts that have been successfully used to save time on project construction:
∙ Utah I-15: This reconstruction project serves as an excellent example of the potential for time savings when using design-build. The I-15 project would have taken an estimated 7 years under traditional design-bid-build contracting, but was actually completed in 4.5 years using the design-build method.[71] The Utah Department of Transportation selected the design-build method in order to accelerate the reconstruction of I-15 before the opening of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. The project required the reconstruction of 16.3 miles of highway, including the demolition and reconstruction of 142 bridges. The I-15 project was opened to traffic in May 2001, five months before the scheduled completion date of October 2001.[72]
∙ Alameda Corridor: Design-build was chosen by Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) because of the time-savings offered by this innovative contracting method. The finance plan required the Alameda project to be completed within a specified number of months after bond issuance. The ACTA determined that a design-build approach would save both project time and costs.[73] The project, a rail system connecting the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles, was completed approximately twelve months earlier than under a fast track design-bid-build process.[74]
∙ State Route 288: For Virginia's State Route 288, the State chose a design-build-warranty approach for the construction of 10.5 miles of new highway, expansion of 7 miles of existing highway, building of six new interchanges, modification of two interchanges, and construction of 23 bridges along the roadway in order to finish the road quickly and with minimal delays. The project was completed 3.5 years earlier than if a traditional approach was used.[75]
∙ The SR 500 Thurston Way Interchange: This project, Washington State's first design-build project, was completed within the contractually mandated time. It has been estimated that the design-build process saved at least 5 months, or 16%, from the comparable design-bid-build process.[76]
∙ Route 3 North: In August 1999, the Massachusetts Legislature authorized $385 million for Route 3 North to make a number of improvements to this highway, The design-build-operate delivery method of the project was the first of its kind in the State and allowed the Route 3 North project to be completed in 42 months, rather than the initially estimated 9 years-cutting the delivery time by more than half.[77]
∙ New Mexico State Route 44: Although not technically a design-build contract, the innovative use of professional services contracting allowed the NMSHTD to enjoy many of the benefits of a design-build project approach without requiring the State to abandon the traditional low-bid method of procurement. Almost all of the time-savings, however, were a result of the private sector working with the State to develop an alternative financing mechanism for this project. Instead of using the traditional pay-as-you-go method of finance, which would have taken 27 years, the State issued GARVEE bonds backed by future Federal-aid payments. This financing combined with the contracting approach cut the total project time from 27 years to within 3 years.[78]
More information about these projects is contained in Appendix D.