GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 16-21
FINAL REPORT
FLASH TRACKING FOR ACCELERATED PROJECT DELIVERY (APD)
OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
15 KENNEDY DRIVE FOREST PARK, GA 30297-2534

1.Report No.: FHWA-GA-19-1621

2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.:

4. Title and Subtitle:

5. Report Date:

Flash Tracking for Accelerated Project Delivery (APD) December 2018

6. Performing Organization Code:

7. Author(s): Pardis Pishdad-Bozorgi (GT) Jesus M. de la Garza (VT)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Georgia Institute of Technology School of Building Construction 280 Ferst Dr., Atlanta, GA 30332
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Office of Performance-based Management and Research 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2534
15. Supplementary Notes:

8. Performing Organ. Report No.:
10. Work Unit No.:
11. Contract or Grant No.: 0015165
13. Type of Report and Period Covered: July 2016-December 2018
14. Sponsoring Agency Code:

16. Abstract:
The objectives of this study are to identify, assess, and validate best practices that are crucial for the successful completion of Flash Track projects. Five Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) projects and three Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) projects are used as case studies. These cases were carefully studied to validate existing Construction Industry Institute (CII) practices and to identify new practices essential for successful completion of Flash Track projects. The Flash Track tool developed by the CII was used to determine the readiness of a project team to complete a project of this nature. The research data were collected through numerous meetings, interviews, questionnaires, through various statistical analyses, and through discussions with project personnel from the studied projects. Some of the pertinent conclusions and products of this study are as follows:

The xDOT toolkit best represents the best practices crucial to the successful completion of Flash Track projects.

The seven categories of xDOT best practices: (1) Right of Way & Utilities [11.9%], (2) Pre-construction [9.6%], (3) Contractual [21.2%], (4) Planning [9.7%], (5) Information Management [9.7%], (6) Execution [21.9%], and (7) Traffic Management [15.9%].

The top three xDOT best practices are: (1) Implementing construction driven designs, (2) Ensuring worker/public health and safety, and (3) Having a responsible in-charge engineer/design-build integrator.

17. Key Words: Flash Track, Accelerated Project Delivery, Project Delivery, Accelerated Construction, Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)

18. Distribution Statement:

19. Security Classification 20.Security Classification 21. Number of 22. Price: (of this report): Unclassified (of this page): Unclassified Pages: 123

ii

GDOT Research Project No. 16-21
Final Report
FLASH TRACKING FOR ACCELERATED PROJECT DELIVERY (APD) By
Pardis Pishdad-Bozorgi, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Georgia Institute of Technology Jesus M. de la Garza, Ph.D., co-Principal Investigator, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
School of Building Construction Georgia Institute of Technology
Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation
In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
December 2018
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
iii

Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ xiii
EXTENDED ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... xiv RESEARCH FINDINGS........................................................................................................... xv REPORT LAYOUT ................................................................................................................. xix AKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ xxi SECTION I - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2 - DETAILED RESEARCH STUDY ...................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 4
Phase I: Data Collection.........................................................................................................4 Phase II: Data Analysis - Delphi ...........................................................................................7 Phase III: Data Analysis - AHP.............................................................................................7 Phase IV: AHP for xDOT ......................................................................................................7 SECTION 3 - SR 299 AT I-24 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ..................................................... 8 PROJECT OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 8 Project Team...........................................................................................................................8 Challenges ...............................................................................................................................9 Project Map...........................................................................................................................10
iv

OVERALL SUCCESS OF SR 299 AT I-24 ............................................................................. 10 ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING................................................. 11 FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS FOR SR 299 AT I-24................................ 11 SR 299 AT I-24 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES 13 SR 299 AT I-24 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE ...................................................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 4 - JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR................................................................. 18 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 18
Project Team.........................................................................................................................18 Challenges .............................................................................................................................19 Project Map...........................................................................................................................20 OVERALL SUCCESS OF JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR............................................. 20 ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING................................................. 20 FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS ................................................................... 21 JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES ............. 23 JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE ................................................................................................................................................... 25 SECTION 5 - RIVERSIDE DRIVE ROUNDABOUTS AT I-285 .......................................... 29 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 29 Project Team.........................................................................................................................29 Challenges .............................................................................................................................30
v

Project Map...........................................................................................................................31 OVERALL SUCCESS OF RIVERSIDE ROUNDABOUTS AT I-285 ................................... 31 ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING................................................. 31 FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS ................................................................... 32 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ROUNDABOUTS PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES ...... 36 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ROUNDABOUTS POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE ...................................................................................................................................... 38 SECTION 6 SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ............................ 42 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 42
Project Team.........................................................................................................................42 Challenges .............................................................................................................................43 Project Map...........................................................................................................................44 OVERALL SUCCESS OF SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT........... 44 ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING................................................. 44 FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS ................................................................... 45 SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES ............................ 48 SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE ............ 52 SECTION 7 - LITERATURE REVIEW OVERVIEW ........................................................... 57 SECTION 8 - DELPHI PROCESS AND VALIDATION ....................................................... 61 VALIDATION PROCESS AND FINAL SELECTION ........................................................... 61 ADDITIONAL BEST PRACTICES FROM SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS ....................... 61
vi

ADDITIONAL BEST PRACTICES PROGRESS SUMMARY .............................................. 62 FINAL SELECTION................................................................................................................. 65 SECTION 9 RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 67 BEST PRACTICES CATEGORIES BY GDOT ...................................................................... 67 ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) ........................................................................ 69
AHP Participants..................................................................................................................71 AHP Results ..........................................................................................................................71 RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR GDOT BEST PRACTICES ...................... 75 BEST PRACTICES CATEGORIES DEVELOPED BY VDOT .............................................. 76 Research Methods ................................................................................................................76 Research Layout ...................................................................................................................77 xDOT FLASH TRACK TOOLKIT .......................................................................................... 82 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for xDOT ...................................................................86 AHP Participants..................................................................................................................87 AHP Results ..........................................................................................................................88 SECTION 10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 95 xDOT IMPLEMENTATION: COURTLAND STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ............ 95 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................96 xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results .......................................................................98 Assessment of Readiness For Flash Tracking ..................................................................102 WORKFLOW PROCESS MODEL FOR FLASH TRACK PROJECTS ............................... 102
vii

SECTION 11 - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............................. 111 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 112 APPENDIX I.............................................................................................................................. 115
VALIDATION RUBRIC FOR FLASH TRACK PRACTICES ....................................115 APPENDIX II ............................................................................................................................ 118
CII FLASH TRACK BEST PRACTICES .......................................................................118 APPENDIX III........................................................................................................................... 121
xDOT PLAYBOOK............................................................................................................121 APPENDIX IV ........................................................................................................................... 122
xDOT TOOLKIT................................................................................................................122
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: xDOT Best Practices Categories and their AHP Weights............................................. xvii Table 2: Definition of Issues Scoring System ................................................................................. 6 Table 3: SR 299 at I-24 Meeting Attendees .................................................................................. 11 Table 4: SR 299 at I-24 Readiness Assessment for Flash Tracking.............................................. 12 Table 5: SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement Potential Best Practices Summary......................... 16 Table 6: SR 299 at I-24 New Potential Best Practices Progress ................................................... 17 Table 7: Jimmy Deloach Connector Meeting Attendees ............................................................... 21 Table 8: Jimmy Deloach Connector Potential Best Practices Summary ....................................... 26 Table 9: New Potential Best Practices identified from the SR 299 at I-24 and Jimmy Deloach Connector Projects ........................................................................................................................ 28 Table 10: Riverside Drive Roundabouts Meeting Attendees ........................................................ 32 Table 11: Riverside Drive Roundabouts Readiness Assessment for Flash Tracking.................... 32 Table 12: Riverside Drive Roundabouts at I-285 Potential Best Practices Summary................... 39 Table 13: Riverside Drive at I-285 New Potential Best Practices Progress .................................. 41 Table 14: SR 47 at Little River Meeting Attendees ...................................................................... 45 Table 15: SR 47 Readiness Assessment for Flash Tracking ......................................................... 45 Table 16: SR 47 Bridge Replacement Potential Best Practices Summary Table .......................... 53 Table 17: SR 47 Bridge New Potential Best Practices Progress ................................................... 56 Table 18: Literature Review Potential Best Practices ................................................................... 58 Table 19: New Best Practices Progress from Literature Review .................................................. 59 Table 20: GDOT Best Practices from Validation.......................................................................... 62 Table 21: GDOT New Best Practices Validation Process............................................................. 63 Table 22: GDOT Validation Process Results ................................................................................ 66 Table 23: GDOT New Best Practices Categories.......................................................................... 67 Table 24: AHP Scoring for GDOT Best Practices ........................................................................ 69
ix

Table 25: AHP Comparison Table for GDOT Best Practices ....................................................... 70 Table 26: AHP Participants for GDOT Best Practices.................................................................. 71 Table 27: GDOT Flash Track Best Practices and their AHP Weights .......................................... 72 Table 28: Participants in the Risk Identification Meeting ............................................................. 75 Table 29: VDOT Flash Track Best Practices and their AHP Weights .......................................... 78 Table 30: Flash Track Categories.................................................................................................. 82 Table 31: Old and New Numbering for xDOT Best Practices ...................................................... 83 Table 32: xDOT Best Practices Categories ................................................................................... 84 Table 33: Pairwise Comparison Example for xDOT Best Practices ............................................. 86 Table 34: AHP Scoring for xDOT Best Practices ......................................................................... 87 Table 35: AHP Participants for xDOT Best Practices................................................................... 87 Table 36: Results of the AHP Group Consensus for the xDOT Categories .................................. 89 Table 37: Courtland Street Bridge Replacement Meeting Attendees.......................................... 102
x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Research Methodology .................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement Project Map .......................................................... 10 Figure 3: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for SR 299 at I-24 Bridge .............................. 12 Figure 4: Jimmy Deloach Connector Project Map ........................................................................ 20 Figure 5: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for Jimmy Deloach Connector ...................... 22 Figure 6: VDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Jimmy Deloach Connector ........... 23 Figure 7: Riverside Drive Roundabouts Project Map ................................................................... 31 Figure 8: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Assessment of Riverside Drive Project...................... 34 Figure 9: Design-Build Team Flash Track Readiness Assessment of Riverside Drive Project (VDOT-developed Practices and Categories) ............................................................................... 35 Figure 10: Owner Representative Flash Track Readiness Assessment of Riverside Drive Project (VDOT-developed Practices and Categories) ............................................................................... 35 Figure 11: SR 47 at Little River Bridge Replacement Project Map ........................................... 44 Figure 12: CII Flash Track Readiness Assessment of SR 47 Bridge ............................................ 46 Figure 13: Design-Build Team Flash Track Readiness Assessment of SR 47 Bridge (VDOTdeveloped Practices and Categories) ............................................................................................. 47 Figure 14: Owner Representative Flash Track Readiness Assessment of SR 47 Bridge (VDOTdeveloped Practices and Categories) ............................................................................................. 48 Figure 15: Pairwise Comparison Matrix ....................................................................................... 70 Figure 16: Organizational Structure for GDOT Best Practices ..................................................... 74 Figure 17: Organizational Structure for VDOT Best Practices ..................................................... 81 Figure 18: Consolidated Global Priorities of the xDOT (Left) and CII (Right) Best Practices .... 89 Figure 19: Organizational Structure for xDOT Best Practices ...................................................... 90 Figure 20: Consolidated Global Priorities for the xDOT Best Practices....................................... 93 Figure 21: Consolidated Global Priorities for the CII Best Practices............................................ 94
xi

Figure 22: Courtland Street Bridge Replacement Project Map ..................................................... 98 Figure 23: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement at Outset......................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 24: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement Project at Outset..................................................................................................... 100 Figure 25: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement at Completion .............................................................................................................................. 100 Figure 26: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement at Completion ........................................................................................................ 101 Figure 27: Workflow Process for Flash Track Projects .............................................................. 103 Figure 28: xDOT Toolkit Layout ................................................................................................ 123
xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
This report presents the final results of research identifying, assessing, and validating best practices crucial to the successful completion of accelerated, or Flash Track, construction projects. Five specific projects were used as case studies: SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement; Jimmy Deloach Connector; SR 47 at Little River Bridge Replacement; Riverside Drive Roundabouts at I-285; and the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement. The first four of these cases were carefully studied to validate existing practices, as well as to identify new practices used in the industry to successfully complete Flash Track projects. All five projects were executed by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). The Flash Track tools previously developed by the researchers were used to determine the readiness of the case study project teams to complete projects of this nature. These readiness assessment tools were based on two sets of Flash Track best practices: the first set (47 practices) was generated from a study chartered by the Construction Industry Institute (CII); and the second set (19 practices) from a study sponsored by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). By conducting structured interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs) on the four GDOT projects and by deploying the Delphi method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the researchers were able to isolate 17 emerging Flash Track practices. Moreover, the stakeholders on the GDOT Flash Track case studies collectively identified risks, barriers, and risk mitigation strategies for each of these 17 newly found Flash Track practices.
xiii

To construct one consolidated framework to best represent Flash Track best practices for transportation projects, the research team combined the GDOT and VDOT best practices, creating the xDOT framework. The xDOT best practices categories are as follows: (1) Right of Way (ROW) & Utilities; (2) Pre-construction; (3) Contractual; (4) Planning; (5) Information Management; (6) Execution; and (7) Traffic Management. The AHP method was used to determine the relative weights for each xDOT practice and category. Furthermore, the researchers updated the CII Flash Track Readiness Assessment Toolkit to include one module to include the original 47 CII Flash Track best practices and another module (xDOT) with the new set of 36 combined VDOT and GDOT Flash Track best practices. Finally, a case study project (i.e., the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement) was used as an implementation test case for this CII + xDOT Flash Track Toolkit. This research project also formalizes a re-engineered workflow process for successful Flash Tracking. Given the acronym cPEpC, this workflow process involves a high degree of collaboration through construction-driven design (c) among all project parties before they initiate strategic procurement (P), engineering (E), the balance of procurement (p), and construction (C).
INTRODUCTION
Highways are the backbone of the American transportation system. For decades, these highways have been used to transport economic goods and services across the country. Moreover, American travelers have been the biggest beneficiaries of the highway system, which provides a safe and inexpensive mode of transportation. Unfortunately, it has become a challenge for the growth of the American highway system to match the growth of the country's economy. To strengthen this fundamental element of the American
xiv

transportation system, state highway agencies face challenges such as the need to extend the service life of existing highway infrastructure, as well as building, rehabilitating, and rebuilding the infrastructure without significant user impacts. Strategies must be developed to address the nation's need for safe and uncongested roadways. Because economic development has increased significantly in Georgia in recent decades, GDOT aims to strengthen the state highway system and improve its performance on accelerated construction projects. To do this, GDOT has worked to enhance research on and then deploy Flash Track best practices for successful completion of these schedulecompressed projects. In collaboration with the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), GDOT has sought to advance the CII and VDOT research on Flash Track best practices, in an effort to identify Flash Track best practices suitable for GDOT.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
This research sought to identify and evaluate best practices for accelerated "Flash Track" project delivery through an extensive literature review and a detailed examination of five case study projects: SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement; the Jimmy Deloach Connector; SR 47 at Little River Bridge Replacement; the Riverside Drive Roundabouts at I-285; and the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement. The first four cases were carefully studied to validate existing practices and to identify new practices for successful Flash Track projects. The fifth case (i.e., the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement) was used as an implementation case for the xDOT Flash Track Toolkit. After thoroughly investigating these four projects, reviewing input from subject matter
xv

experts (SMEs), and comprehensively reviewing the literature review, the researchers identified 17 new Flash Track best practices. Added to the 66 Flash Track best practices previously incorporated into the CII and VDOT Flash Track Readiness Assessment modules of the CII Flash Track Best Practices Toolkit, these 17 new best practices facilitate successful Flash Track implementation. The identified 17 new practices were classified into four categories, and AHP was used to assess, validate, and rank them. The best practices from VDOT and GDOT were then re-organized and grouped into a new set of xDOT categories: (1) ROW & Utilities, (2) Pre-construction, (3) Contractual, (4) Planning, (5) Information Management, (6) Execution, and (7) Traffic Management. To determine the relative weights for each xDOT practice in each category, the researchers used the AHP method to analyze data gathered from an automated online tool designed to develop pairwise comparisons. The final weights for xDOT categories and best practices are presented in Table 1. The top three xDOT best practices are as follows: (1) Implementing Construction-driven Design; (2) Ensuring Worker/Public Health and Safety; and (3) Having a Responsible In-charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator. Furthermore, the xDOT Flash Track tool was used to assess the team's readiness to execute the GDOT Courtland project on a Flash Track basis. As a result, the principal investigators provided GDOT with recommendations to incorporate a number of Flash Track best practices into the Courtland request for proposals and instructions to proposers (RFP-ITP). (See Appendix III and IV for the xDOT Flash Track Playbook and xDOT Flash Track Readiness Toolkit, both of which are based on the best practices identified through the previous research on VDOT and GDOT projects.)
xvi

Table 1: xDOT Best Practices Categories and their AHP Weights

ROW & Utilities Pre-Construction Contractual Planning Information Management Execution Traffic Management

Categories

Consistency Ratio

Weight
11.9% 9.6% 21.2% 9.7% 9.7% 21.9% 15.9% 0.5%

ROW & Utilities

Weight

48 Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners 49 Having Early Utility and ROW Coordination 50 Having a Dedicated Utility Manager Consultants for xDOT and the
Designer-Constructor Team 51 Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering 52 Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition 53 Starting ROW Acquisition during Conceptual Design (20% - 50%
Design) Consistency Ratio

19.0% 20.6% 12.8%
14.7% 17.1% 15.8%
0.8%

Pre-Construction

Weight

54 Conducting Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel
55 Gathering Accurate Geotechnical (Sub-surface) Data, to Reduce Risk 56 Establishing Programmatic Agreements to Streamline the Process for
Handling Routine Environmental Requirements
57 Using Pre-construction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select Alternative Project Scenarios
Consistency Ratio

32.9% 22.1% 34.2% 10.8% 0.2%

xvii

Contractual

Weight

58 Having a Responsible In-charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator 59 Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in
Design-Build Contract 60 Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion 61 Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items as Means of Risk Sharing 62 Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Time-critical
Elements Consistency Ratio

22.2% 18.0%
21.6% 17.8% 20.4%
0.5%

Planning

Weight

63 Having A 30-day State-owned Float Activity As a Predecessor to the Scheduled Completion Date, to Absorb Critical Delays Occasioned by the State
64 Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design
65 Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction 66 Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of Portland Cement Concrete
(PCC) Pavement, Given the Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors
67 Considering Both Inter-phase and Intra-phase Concurrency for Design and Construction Packages
68 Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location
Consistency Ratio

10.0%
10.0% 28.3% 10.7%
26.3% 14.7% 0.5%

Information Management

Weight

69 Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects 70 Developing a Planned Issue Resolution Process 71 Utilizing an Integrated Document Management System for Tracking
Requests for Information (RFIs), Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), Submittals, and Other Time-sensitive Documents
Consistency Ratio

17.6% 41.9% 40.5%
0.2%

xviii

Execution

Weight

72 Pre-fabricating Project Elements that Are on the Critical Path 73 Considering Innovative Construction Materials that Accelerate
Construction 74 Implementing Construction-driven Designs 75 Making Timely Decisions through the Use of Workshops 76 Establishing a Project Command Center 77 Establishing a Shuttle Bus Service for Construction Workers, Taking
Them from a Common Parking Lot to the Job Site Consistency Ratio

15.7% 13.8%
31.6% 19.0% 14.9% 5.1%
0.9%

Traffic Management

Weight

78 Ensuring Efficient Coordination of Construction with the Management of Traffic Issues
79 Utilizing a Lane Closure Time Bank 80 Deploying Continual Public Outreach, Media Campaigns, and
Dedicated Communications Personnel 81 Ensuring Worker/Public Health and Safety 82 Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning 83 Implementing Smarter Work Zones to Dynamic Management of
Traffic and Reduced Work Zone Impacts Consistency Ratio

16.3%
7.5% 19.3%
36.2% 10.0% 10.7%
0.5%

REPORT LAYOUT
Section 1 introduces the project in general terms and briefly provides the project's background, the reason for conducting it, and its objectives and significance. Section 2 outlines the research methodology. Section 3 discusses the detailed study of the SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement project, beginning with the project overview, project performance outcomes, its Flash Tracking readiness assessment score, a number of the project positives and challenges, and a listing of the practices derived from the project. Similarly, Section 4 presents a detailed study of the Jimmy Deloach Connector project. Section 5 describes the
xix

project at the Riverside Drive Roundabouts at I-285. Section 6 discusses the study of SR 47 at the Little River Bridge Replacement project in detail. Section 7 presents the results of the Literature Review and lists the practices identified from it. Sections 8 presents the 17 best practices categories developed by GDOT, giving a brief overview of the Delphi Process used to identify them. Section 9 discusses the final results including the final selection of categories for GDOT best practices, their relative weights determined through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the risks, barriers, and risk mitigation strategies for each of the 17 GDOT Flash Track practices. This section also outlines the research methods and findings of the Flash Track best practices research sponsored by VDOT, and presents the consolidated xDOT framework of best practices for Flash-Track projects. Section 10 discusses the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement project as an implementation case for the xDOT practices. This section also formalizes a reengineered workflow process for successful Flash Tracking. Lastly, Section 11 presents recommendations for future research.
xx

AKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express sincere appreciation for the funding provided by the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to carry out this research. The authors are also appreciative of the input, time, and support received by the Office of Innovative Delivery, the stakeholders of the projects studied in this research, and the graduate students at both Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech who participated in this research.
xxi

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
Time, cost, and quality constitute the trifecta of goals for any construction project. Getting all three right is a skill that many owners and project teams work hard to master. The increasing complexities and uncertainties of capital project delivery have made it difficult for projects to achieve high performance on all three. In the current project environment, it has become necessary to make time, cost, and quality trade-offs [1]. In the rapidly changing business environment of the 21st century, the construction industry has been seeking innovative ways to ensure faster and more economical project delivery [2]. Innovation and experimentation with newer project delivery methods have significantly helped project teams achieve all three goals. However, complexities still exist, and owners continue to suffer from problems such as schedule delays [3]. Consequently, many owner organizations harbor a negative impression of the construction industry [4]. Fast-tracking has recently emerged as a project delivery approach that has enabled the industry to take a leap forward in achieving schedule compression. With its practice of having construction begin before project design is complete, fast-tracking is now so common that major firms employ it on over 95 percent of their projects [5]. Even from a financial point of view, the numerous business benefits of early completion impel project managers to employ fast-tracking strategies [6]. Interestingly, the popularity of fast tracking has exposed its limits, since businesses competing for a market edge develop greater needs for even faster project delivery. A recent I-85 bridge collapse in Atlanta affected about 220,000 commuters who drive that section of the interstate highway every day [7]. Because fast tracking is just not fast enough
1

in such emergencies, a dire need arises for innovative flash-track practices in this type of construction. This necessity has led to the advent of the new concept of Flash Tracking. A Flash Track project can be defined as being time-driven, and by necessity, involving a heightened degree of concurrency between engineering, procurement, and construction [3]. In addition to the prospect of gaining a competitive advantage, other compelling reasons owners increasingly demand faster project delivery include the growing number of emergency rebuilds and more stringent regulatory compliance considerations [3]. Hence, Flash Tracking in the form of faster fast-tracking is pursued [3]. To date, a number of Flash Tracking efforts have been successfully implemented; a few examples include an emergency rebuild of the Saint Anthony Falls I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis, a contractual Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) for a new 192-bed Maine General Medical Center in Augusta, and a new ThyssenKrupp state-of-the-art steel processing facility in southwestern Alabama [8]. Given the success of these initial Flash Tracking efforts, the need is clear for further research into identifying and documenting Flash Track best practices. The primary objectives of this project are as follows:
1) To examine the 47 Flash Track practices identified by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) research for heavy industrial projects [3], and the 19 Flash Track practices identified through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); and to determine the applicability of these 66 Flash Track practices to projects performed by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). 2) To identify new Flash Track practices suitable for GDOT projects, validate them
2

by subject matter experts (SMEs) through a Delphi process; and rank by the SMEs through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). 3) To combine GDOT and VDOT best practices (i.e., called xDOT Flash Track best practices), rank them using the AHP method, and develop the Flash Track Playbook and Readiness Assessment Toolkit.
3

SECTION 2 - DETAILED RESEARCH STUDY
METHODOLOGY
The research methodology comprised four phases. The first phase involved an extensive literature review to identify additional Flash Track practices suitable for transportation projects. In addition, four Flash Track projects in the state of Georgia were studied to identify any new Flash Track practices particularly applicable to GDOT projects. Structured interviews were conducted with key engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) team members involved in these projects. Each project interview involved a meeting with key stakeholders. In the second phase, the practices identified in the first phase were vetted by SMEs using the Delphi process, to determine whether they are essential to Flash Tracking. In the third phase, the SMEs used the AHP method to rank and weight the final GDOT Flash Track practices. Lastly, in the fourth phase, GDOT and VDOT best practices were consolidated into one framework, called xDOT, constituting a comprehensive compendium of best practices for flash-track projects. Moreover, the final set of xDOT Flash Track Best Practices were ranked and weighted through the AHP method. Figure 1 presents a flow chart of the entire research methodology.
Phase I: Data Collection An extensive literature review was conducted to identify any fast-track practices that facilitate Flash Track efforts. Research journals published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) were a few of the numerous databases reviewed. Section 7 discusses this literature review in greater depth.
4

Phase I

Phase II

Discovery (from Literature Review
and Structured Interviews)

43 Flash Track Practices for Transportation
Projects

Consolidation & Comparison
against 66 CII & VDOT Best Practices

19 Newly Identified Flash
Track Best Practices

17 GDOT Flash Track Best Practices

Delphi Process Phase
2

15 Practices + 2 New Practices
Proposed

Delphi Process Phase 1

Developing AHP Questionnaire for 17 GDOT Best
Practices

AHP Data Collection +
Final Weights for 17 GDOT Best Practices

Developing a GDOTSpecific Playbook

Phase III

Phase IV

Developing an xDOT Flash Track Toolkit and
Playbook

AHP Data Collection +
Final Weights for 36 xDOT Best Practices

Developing AHP Questionnaire for
36 xDOT Best Practices

Combining GDOT and VDOT Best Practices

Figure 1: Research Methodology
Furthermore, the structured interviews of the EPC team members were conducted on four successful Flash Track projects in Georgia: the Bridge Replacement of SR 299 on I-24; the Jimmy Deloach Connector; the Bridge Replacement of SR 47 over the Little River; and the Riverside Drive Roundabouts on I-285. Seven meetings were held. The first meeting was a Kick-off meeting, where staff of the GDOT Office of Innovative Delivery (OID) gave a brief overview of their responsibilities, goals, achievements, and their current projects. The subsequent five meetings were divided across four projects. The seventh one
5

involved validation of the identified practices, as well as briefing the SMEs about the AHP process. For these projects, Flash Track toolkits (e.g., the CII, VDOT, and xDOT toolkits) were used to retrospectively assess GDOT's readiness to deliver each one on a Flash Track basis.

In addition, readiness to undertake Flash Track projects was determined by giving the meeting attendees a Flash Track readiness assessment toolkit developed in previous research sponsored by CII and VDOT. The toolkit comprises a set of questions formulated to determine how project team members experience a project. These practitioners were advised to think retrospectively about how prepared they were to undertake a Flash Track project. This involved them assessing their readiness either to implement the 47 CII Flash Track Best Practices, or to implement the 19 VDOT practices on a scale of 1 to 10 [3]. (Table 2 presents the scoring rubric used.)

Table 2: Definition of Issues Scoring System

Score 0,1 2,3 4,5,6 7,8,9 10

Meaning Unprepared Somewhat Unprepared
Neutral Somewhat Prepared
Very Prepared

At the end of every session, the teams were also asked to assess their overall success at Flash Tracking, using a scale of 1 to 10. On the basis of these scores, all four projects were deemed successful. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 provide detailed descriptions of the casestudies, research method, and findings.

6

Phase II: Data Analysis - Delphi To verify that the newly identified practices are essential to Flash Tracking, the data were analyzed through the Delphi process. Representatives from all four projects, along with a few GDOT officials, participated as SMEs in these Delphi studies. See Section 8 for a detailed description of this research method and the findings.
Phase III: Data Analysis - AHP In addition to identifying the new Flash Track practices applicable to GDOT construction, it was important for the project teams to know the relative weights of each practice. The AHP method was used to determine the relative weights for each practice. This involved making pairwise comparisons based on the judgments and input of the SMEs. Section 9 provides detailed descriptions of this research method and the findings.
Phase IV: AHP for xDOT The 17 GDOT and 19 VDOT best practices were combined into one framework and called the xDOT best practices. This combined set of best practices was re-organized and grouped into a new set of seven categories. Then, to determine the relative weights for each practice in each category, the researchers used the AHP method to analyze the pairwise comparisons generated by an automated online tool. Section 9 provides detailed descriptions of this research method and the findings.
7

SECTION 3 - SR 299 AT I-24 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
GDOT awarded the contract for the reconstruction of the State Route (SR) 299 Bridge over Interstate (I) 24 in Dade County. This project was part of the agency's Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) initiative and delivered through its Design-Build program. Interestingly, it was the state's first bridge replacement project executed completely with ABC methods [11]. The $7.27 million project was designed to provide a safe and a reliable means of transportation for motorists in Dade County.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Located approximately 0.6 miles south of the Georgia/Tennessee state line and crossing Interstate 24, this bridge is an overpass at the I-24 interchange at exit 169. The bridge's length is approximately 0.16 miles along SR 299. The replacement project's limits extended 0.39 miles north of the bridge and 2,000 feet south of it along I-24, for a total length of approximately 0.77 miles along I-24 [12]. Interstate 24 is a four-lane freeway (with two lanes going in each direction), with a speed limit of 65 mph within the area of study. The SR 299 interchange is a partial cloverleaf, with single-lane ramps to the south of SR 299.
Project Team The SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement project is the product of a public-private partnership between GDOT, FHWA, the HNTB Corporation, and the Design-Build team of Wright Brothers, and Parsons Brinckerhoff.
8

Challenges The following are the numerous challenges of the project:
Because the state route carries heavy traffic, closing the bridge for normal bridge replacement was not an option.
The April 2017 deadline was critical because no closure was going to be possible in June or early July of that year; so, missing the deadline would have delayed the project by at least 1.5 months.
Demolition of the existing bridge was difficult, since it was welded together and had to be broken down into two sections.
9

Project Map
Figure 2: SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement Project Map
OVERALL SUCCESS OF SR 299 AT I-24
After considering the positives, challenges, lessons learned, and Readiness Assessment scores, the researchers concluded that the SR 299 at I-24 bridge replacement was a successful Flash Track project. (See Figure 3 below for the project's Flash Track readiness scores.)
10

ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING
The meeting for this project took place on August 18, 2016. During this meeting, the researchers interviewed the participating SMEs to determine the project team's readiness to carry out this project on a Flash Track basis. With the input of the SMEs, the research team identified new Flash Track best practices and documented lessons learned.

Meeting Attendees

Table 3 shows the attendees of the SR 299 at I-24 project interview.

Table 3: SR 299 at I-24 Meeting Attendees

Name Andrew Hoenig Dustin O'Quinn

Company GDOT Innovative Delivery
HNTB Corporation

FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS FOR SR 299 AT I-24
Representatives from the project team were asked to assess the project's readiness for Flash Tracking using the CII-developed module of the CII Flash Track Readiness tool. The module assesses six project areas: 1) Contractual Readiness; 2) Delivery Readiness; 3) Organizational Readiness; 4) Cultural Readiness; 5) Planning Readiness; and 6) Execution Readiness. Table 4 presents the participants' assessment of readiness for Flash Tracking in these areas. Figure 3 provides a screenshot of these results in the tool's dashboard.

11

Table 4: SR 299 at I-24 Readiness Assessment for Flash Tracking

No.

Questions

1 Overall Readiness, to undertake the Flash Track Project?

2 Contractual consideration readiness?

3 Project Delivery consideration readiness?

4 Organizational consideration readiness?

5 Cultural consideration readiness?

6 Planning consideration readiness?

7 Execution consideration readiness?

Scores 7.8 7.1 7.8 7.6 8.4 7.7 7.9

Figure 3: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Table 4 and Figure 3 both show that the project team was most ready for Flash Tracking in the Cultural category (with a score of 8.4 out of 10) and in the Execution category (with a score of 7.9). In the Organizational category, the project identified "Using team building and partnering practices" as a key concern.
12

SR 299 AT I-24 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES
Presented below are the questions about project readiness the project team answered about the positives and challenges they encountered in the six CII-developed project assessment areas. Also listed are the answers to each question.

1. Contractual Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Contractual considerations?

Contractual Positives
Clear, specific, scoping requirements were set for the project. A draft request for proposals was used.
Performance based specifications were established. There was a disincentive for late completion. However, an incentive for early completion was not part of a contract.
Contract strategies were tailored to project-specific conditions. That is why the contract specified the use of either of the only two methods: slide-in, and selfpropelled modular transport (SPMT).
Inclusion of all construction activities within the ROW was a positive contractual consideration.

Contractual Challenges
The Design-Build team had a limited 56hour closure window, causing team members to hold detour meetings, and establish outreach with the Tennessee Department of Transportation.
Federal funds were pulled, and then later restored, causing GDOT to re-advertise. No pre-let procurement efforts were utilized.

13

2. Project Delivery Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Project Delivery
considerations?

Project Delivery Positives
Procurement was done using Best Value procurement.
The Design-Build team brought in the subject matter experts (SMEs) during the actual deck move.
GDOT's move of engaging some SMEs during RFP development and the cost estimation phase was a positive project delivery consideration.

Project Delivery Challenges
An attempt at relocating the utilities was made, but it couldn't be done.
The technical percentage could have been higher. The technical proposal was only 25 percent, and this was considered as a project delivery challenge.
Using 3D modeling for updating a common database was not feasible on a $7.27 million project.

3. Organizational Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Organizational
considerations?

Organizational Positives
Delegating the decision making to the project level was a strong organizational positive.
GDOT worked on dedicating resources from each SME field to support the Innovative Delivery Program.
SMEs were brought in as needed, to better engage the owner's representatives.
Staffing with multi-skilled personnel was done by bringing in national ABC experts.

Organizational Challenges
Establishing a fully integrated project team was a challenge, since the project scale did not yield to a more integrated team.
A federal training program was required.
It was a challenge to empower the project team because the Design-Build team lacked leadership personnel.

14

4. Cultural Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Cultural considerations?

Cultural Positives
One of the positive cultural considerations was legislative approval of the best value pilot ABC project.
GDOT was an active, involved, and fully committed owner.

Cultural Challenges
One of the challenges that the project faced was getting the baseline schedule approved.
Executive alignment among the contracted parties was a challenge and wasn't engaged. A plausible reason for this was the size of the project.

5. Planning Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Planning considerations?

Planning Positives
Considering the speed of fabrication and construction during the selection of design alternatives, the positive planning consideration here was that the project was ABC from the start.
GDOT recognized and managed additional Flash Track risks by making decisions that allowed the Design-Build team to be successful.

Planning Challenges
There was a possibility of having a more integrated project controls process.
The Design-Build team struggled with critical path items and finished the designs at the eleventh hour.

6. Execution Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Execution considerations?

Execution Positives
Using eBuilder as a document and process tracking system helped simplify the approval procedures.
Using the SPMT method for construction reduced the construction cost.
Monthly project review meetings were conducted.

Execution Challenges
Co-locating the project team was a challenge, since the scale of project did not justify it.
Dedicating full-time personnel to the project was a challenge, since resources were limited.

15

SR 299 AT I-24 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE
After conducting the project team interviews, facilitating discussions, and performing an independent analysis of the project, the researchers prepared a table of the potential best practices for successful Flash Tracking. (See Table 5.) Moreover, these potential best practices, along with descriptions of their implementation and benefits, were crossreferenced against the 47 existing CII Flash Track best practices and the 19 VDOT Flash Track best practices. In the table, the practices that were found to have no corresponding CII and VDOT best practices are labeled "New." This collection of practices was further analyzed through the Delphi process and AHP to generate the GDOT Best Practices. (See Appendix II for the full list of the CII best practices, and Section 9 for all the VDOT best practices.)

Table 5: SR 299 at I-24 Bridge Replacement Potential Best Practices Summary

No.

Best Practices from SR 299

Description of Implementation/
Benefits

Corresponding
CII & VDOT
1
Best Practices

Relevant CII and
VDOT Best
2
Practices

1. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location (New)

Easier transportation of bridge elements
Better coordination
Reduced costs due to proximity to the site

--

39. Considering Speed

of Fabrication and

Construction during

the Selection of

Design Alternatives

41. Co-location of Project Team (Owner, Designer, Builder, and/or Vendors)

62. Implementing Smarter Work Zones to Dynamically Manage Traffic and Reduce Work Zone Impacts

16

No.

Best Practices from SR 299

Description of Implementation/
Benefits

2. Considering 3D and Ensures a greater 4D Modeling of the awareness level

Execution Sequence during the Schematic

Provides more possible alternatives

Design (New)

Provides with a 3D

animation

Corresponding CII & VDOT
1
Best Practices
--

Relevant CII and VDOT Best
2
Practices
17. Engaging Operations and Maintenance Personnel in the Development and Design Process

3. Considering 3D and Drawings and

--

17. Engaging

4D Modeling of the specifications identified

Operations and

Execution

by stages in execution

Maintenance

Sequence during sequence process

Personnel in the

the Detailed Design drawings

Development and

(New)

Execution sequence

Design Process

process drawings

developed

Table 6 presents the newly identified potential best practices identified from the SR 299 at I-24 project.

Table 6: SR 299 at I-24 New Potential Best Practices Progress

No.

Practices

SR 299 I-24

1. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location
2.3 Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Schematic Design
3. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design

SR 299 I-24 (1) SR 299 I-24 (2) SR 299 I-24 (3)

1 The term "Corresponding Practices" refers to the existing best practices that are very similar to the best practices developed from the project. 2 The term "Relevant Practices" refers to the existing practices that are somewhat related to the project's best practices. It also refers to any practice that enables the best practices developed from the project. 3 This practice did not make the statistical cut. (See Section 8 for more about the Delphi process and the statistical criteria used.
17

SECTION 4 - JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Jimmy Deloach Connector is a 3.1-mile limited access four-lane highway, beginning at an at-grade "T" intersection with State Route (SR) 307/Bourne Avenue and terminating at the existing eastern end of the Jimmy Deloach Parkway. It not only connects State Route 80 and State Route 21/Augusta Highway, but also runs parallel to SR 21/Augusta Highway. This project included the construction of six bridges, new interchanges at Grange Road and Sonny Dixon, and 11-acre area of wetland mitigation. This expedited delivery project was completed in May 2016. The limited access roadway consists of four 12-foot wide travel lanes (two in either direction), separated by a median barrier with four-foot-wide inside shoulders and 6.5-footwide paved outside shoulders. This roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Following is the timeline of the project:
Project concept was completed in 2010. Project was funded with $100 million worth of bonds sold by the state in 2011. Project was awarded to the Design-Build team on December 2, 2011. Ground-breaking took place on October 17, 2013. Project was completed on May 27, 2016.
Project Team This project was the product of a partnership between GDOT and the awarded DesignBuild team. The prime contractor on the Design-Build team was Archer Western
18

Contractors, and the prime designer was Michael Baker International (formally the LPA Group). The different GDOT entities participating in this project were Innovative Delivery, Traffic Operations, and District 5. Other project stakeholders were Georgia Port Authority, Chatham County, the City of Savannah, and the City of Port Wentworth.
Challenges Following are the numerous challenges faced during construction:
Geotechnical issues presented some of the most important challenges, including settling, piling, friction issues, and the need for wetland mitigation and ground improvements.
ROW acquisition, particularly on industrial and residential tracts, proved difficult and affected the project schedule.
Utility relocation was included in the Design-Build contract. However, the utility companies did not provide enough pre-bid information. Some even refused to provide pre-bid information.
Construction on Bridge 1 was delayed by Georgia Power's purchase of its ROW. Environmental permitting and mitigation also presented significant challenges,
since the environmental permitting issues that emerged during Value Engineering necessitated numerous design changes.
19

Project Map
Figure 4: Jimmy Deloach Connector Project Map
OVERALL SUCCESS OF JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR
Taking into account the challenges, positive considerations, lessons learned, and Readiness Assessment scores, the research team concluded that the Jimmy Deloach Connector was a successful Flash Track project. (See Figure 5 and Figure 6 for the project's Flash Track readiness scores.)
ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING
The meeting for this project took place on October 14, 2016. During this meeting, the researchers discussed the project team's readiness to carry out the project on a Flash Track basis. With the input of the SMEs, the researchers identified new Flash Track best practices and documented lessons learned.
20

Meeting Attendees Table 7 below shows all the attendees of the Jimmy Deloach project meeting.

Table 7: Jimmy Deloach Connector Meeting Attendees

Name Andrew Hoenig
Brad Gowen Thomas Montgomery
Brian Woods Saurabh Bhattacharya
Cory Knox Richard O'Hara

Company GDOT Innovative Delivery Holt Consulting Company Michael Baker International
Archer Western Parsons Transportation Group Inc.
GDOT District 5 Construction GDOT Innovative Delivery

FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS
Project team members or their representatives were asked to assess the project using both modules of the Flash Track Readiness Toolkit (i.e., the 47 CII-developed practices/categories and the 19 VDOT-developed practices/categories). Figure 5 presents a screenshot of the results of this assessment using CII-developed Flash Track Readiness tool. As shown in Figure 5, the project had a very high score in terms of project delivery readiness (with a score of 8.6 out of a possible 10 points). The high degree of readiness in this area led to success in all other project areas. The three practices that scored the lowest (each with a score of 5) were in three different categories:
Using Highly Integrated 3D Modeling with All Major Users Updating a Common Database (Delivery)
Delegating Authority to the Project Level (Organizational) Co-locating the Project Team (Execution).
21

Figure 5: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for Jimmy Deloach Connector
Figure 6 presents a screenshot of the results of the VDOT Flash Track Readiness assessment module. The categories in this module are as follows: (1) Right of Way & Utilities Readiness; (2) Operations & Public Engagement Readiness; (3) Safety Readiness; (4) Contractual Readiness; (5) Planning, Evaluation, and Environmental Readiness; and (6) Execution Readiness. As the figure shows, the project's highest score (9.7) was in the Safety category. The three lowest scoring practices (each with a score of 5) were in three different categories:
Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners (ROW & Utilities) Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion (Contractual) Utilizing an Integrated Document Management System for Tracking Requests for
Information (RFIs), Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), Submittals, and
22

Other Documents (Execution).
Figure 6: VDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Jimmy Deloach Connector
JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES
Presented below are the questions the project team members answered about the positives and challenges they encountered in four project readiness assessment areas. Also listed are the answers given to each question.
23

1. Contractual Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Contractual considerations?

Contractual Positives
Additional allowances for lane closure and for utilities.
Better ROW considerations by including the ROW in the Design-Build contract. The schedule was the driver for having ROW in the Design-Build contract.

Contractual Challenges
Reducing risks through the collective efforts of all stakeholders was a challenge, as the City of Savannah was difficult to align with.
Funding early critical efforts was challenging because better geotech was needed upfront.
Change management was more challenging during design than during construction.
Because ROW was in the Design-Build contract, contractual incentives should have been included for the designbuilder.
Other key challenges included environmental, utility, geotechnical, and ROW acquisition, among others.

2. Delivery Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Delivery considerations?
Delivery Challenges Engineering, Procurement, and Contracting (EPC) company used 3D modeling, but
GDOT did not use it. GDOT should have done best value procurement of Design-Build. (However, it was not
allowed by law at that time.) Focusing on procurement decisions on construction priorities was a challenge because the
project had some ROW issues.

24

3. Planning Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Planning considerations?

Planning Positives
Most design was completed before construction.

Planning Challenges
It would have been better to have the design process broken down.

4. Execution Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Execution considerations?
Execution Positives Staged construction based on ROW was easier. Delivered on time, and under budget

JIMMY DELOACH CONNECTOR POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE
After conducting interviews, facilitating discussions, and performing an independent analysis of the project, the research team created a table summarizing the potential best practices critical to the success of a Flash Track project. (See Table 8.) Moreover, these potential best practices, along with descriptions of their implementation and benefits, were cross-referenced against the 47 existing CII Flash Track Best Practices and the 19 VDOT best practices. In the table, the practices that were found to have no corresponding CII and VDOT best practices are labeled "New." This collection of practices was further analyzed through the Delphi process and AHP, ultimately to generate the GDOT Best Practices. (See Appendix II for the full list of the CII best practices, and Section 9 for all the VDOT best practices.)

25

Table 8: Jimmy Deloach Connector Potential Best Practices Summary

No.

New Best Practices from Jimmy Deloach

Description of Implementation/Benefits

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII and VDOT Best Practices

1. Phasing

Environmental

Environmental

permitting was required

Permits to Match for 100% of the project.

Phased

But GDOT worked on

Construction

getting phased

(New)

permitting and allowed

the construction to

proceed in phases.

-

51. Having Early Utility

and ROW

Coordination; Engaging

Construction Personnel

during Design and

during Environmental

Document Preparation,

Etc.

58. Conducting Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel

2. Overlapping

Permitting and ROW

Environmental and would have taken two

ROW Acquisition times longer if the

(New)

traditional process had

been followed.

-

50. Starting ROW

Acquisition during

Conceptual Design

(20% to 50% Design)

51. Having Early Utility and ROW Coordination; Engaging Construction Personnel during Design and during Environmental Document Preparation, Etc.

58. Conduct Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel

59. Establishing Programmatic Agreement to Streamline the Process for Handling Routine Environmental Requirements

26

No.

New Best Practices from Jimmy Deloach

Description of Implementation/Benefits

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII and VDOT Best Practices

3. Including ROW, First GDOT Design-

-

1. Setting Clear,

Utility Relocation, Build contract to include

Specific Scoping

and Environmental ROW acquisition, which

Requirements

Mitigation in Design-Build Contract (New)

accelerated the completion of the project schedule by two years.

48. Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners

49. Having Dedicated Utility Manager Consultants for VDOT and the Designer/Constructor Team

50. Starting ROW Acquisition during Conceptual Design (20% to 50% Design)

51. Having Early Utility and ROW Coordination; Engaging Construction Personnel during Design and during Environmental Document Preparation, Etc.

58. Conducting Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel

59. Establishing Programmatic Agreement to Streamline the Process for Handling Routine Environmental Requirements

Table 9 below presents the newly identified potential Flash Track best practices identified from both the SR 299 at I-24 project and the Jimmy Deloach Connector project.
27

Table 9: New Potential Best Practices identified from the SR 299 at I-24 and Jimmy Deloach Connector Projects

No.

Practice

1. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location

1
2.

Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence

during Schematic Design

3. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design

4. Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction

5. Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition

6. Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in the Design-Build Contract

SR 299 I-24
SR 299 I-24 (1) SR 299 I-24 (2) SR 299 I-24 (3)

Jimmy Deloach
JD (1) JD (2) JD (3)

1
This practice did not make the statistical cut. (See Section 8 for more about the Delphi process and the statistical criteria used.)
28

SECTION 5 - RIVERSIDE DRIVE ROUNDABOUTS AT I285
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Riverside Drive Roundabouts project is located on Riverside Drive at the interchange with I-285 in Fulton County, Georgia, standing within the city limits of Sandy Springs. The project was a Design-Build safety project identified by the GDOT Office of Traffic Operations to decrease the severity of the number of crashes at the then-existing interchange. The existing conventional diamond interchange consisted of one twelve-foot lane in both directions, with no turn lanes and traffic signals at the entrance and exit ramps. The newly designed $5.6 million interchange converted the existing signalized ramp intersections to single lane roundabouts. The approach to the roundabouts was designed to have two lanes, with one lane used to enter each roundabout, and one lane used as a right turn lane. The project also provided sidewalks on both sides of Riverside Drive and bridge maintenance on the existing Riverside Drive Bridge over I-285. Project Team This Design-Build project was the product of a partnership between GDOT and the awarded Design-Build firm. The prime designer on the Design-Build team was Infrastructure Consulting and Engineering, LLC, and the prime contractor was BaldwinPaving. The different entities of GDOT participating on this project were Innovative Delivery, Traffic Operations, and District 7. One of the major stakeholders of the project was the City of Sandy Springs.
29

Challenges The following are the numerous challenges faced during construction:
One of the challenges facing GDOT was ROW acquisition, with GDOT assuming the risk of not reaching a resolution during the construction phase.
Since such a roundabout project was the first one built in Georgia, the project faced a lot of naysaying.
Because of their unfamiliarity with roundabouts, the locals were at first concerned that this project would cause an increase in traffic. In response, GDOT focused much of the initial project development on showing the public that the roundabout would not cause a dramatic increase in traffic. It was particularly important to educate users on how to navigate through the roundabout.
The budget for design and construction of landscaping was set prior to letting, and the Design-Build team was responsible for coordinating with the City of Sandy Springs on a landscaping design. It was a challenge to balance the budget and execute construction in compliance with the city's vision for the project's landscaping.
30

Project Map
Figure 7: Riverside Drive Roundabouts Project Map
OVERALL SUCCESS OF RIVERSIDE ROUNDABOUTS AT I-285
After considering the project's positive considerations, challenges, lessons learned, and Readiness Assessment scores, the research team concluded that it was a successful Flash Track project (See Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 for the Flash Track readiness scores).
ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING
The interviews for this project took place on March 17, 2017. During this session, the researchers discussed the readiness of the project team to carry out the project on a Flash Track basis. With the input of the subject matter experts, the researchers identified new Flash Track best practices and documented lessons learned.
31

Meeting Attendees

Table 10 below shows all the attendees at the Riverside Drive Roundabouts project meeting.

Table 10: Riverside Drive Roundabouts Meeting Attendees

Name Marlo Clowers Scott Zehngraff
Shane Swan Jason Walker Ryan Graves Tyler McIntosh

Company GDOT Office of Innovative Delivery
GDOT Traffic Operations HNTB (GDOT representative)
Baldwin Paving Arcadis
Infrastructure Consulting and Engineering, LLC

FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS
Table 11 below presents the overall Flash Track readiness assessments (CII-developed best practices categories), alongside the individual assessments, completed by five of the six participating project members.

Table 11: Riverside Drive Roundabouts Readiness Assessment for Flash Tracking

Questions

All

General Readiness to undertake a Flash Track 7.7 Project

Owners and Representatives
Overall

Design-Build Team
Overall

7.9

8.0

Contractual consideration readiness

8.3

8.0

8.6

Project Delivery consideration readiness 8.4

8.3

8.3

Organizational consideration readiness 8.4

8.3

8.6

32

Questions Cultural consideration readiness Planning consideration readiness Execution consideration readiness

Owners and

Design-Build

All

Representatives Team

Overall

Overall

8.0

7.9

8.5

7.5

7.3

7.9

6.5

7.3

5.9

Project team members or their representatives were asked to assess the project using both modules of the Flash Track Readiness Toolkit (i.e., the 47 CII-developed practices/categories and the 19 VDOT-developed practices/categories). Figure 8 presents a screenshot of the Flash Track Readiness results for the CII developed Flash Track categories, and Figure 9 and Figure 10 present screenshots of the Flash Track readiness results for the VDOT-developed Flash Track categories.
Figure 8 shows that the project scored highest in terms of Organizational and Delivery readiness, which led to success in all other aspects of the project. The practice that scored the lowest (with a score of 4) was Co-locating the Project Team (i.e. the owner, designer, builder, and/or key vendors) in the Execution category.

33

Figure 8: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Assessment of Riverside Drive Project When the members of the Design-Build team performed the assessment with the VDOTdeveloped practices and categories, the highest scoring category was Contractual readiness. (See Figure 9.) This preparedness led to the success in all other aspects of the project. When the owner's representatives performed the VDOT-developed assessment, the highest scoring category was ROW and Utilities. (See Figure 10.) Readiness in these areas led to the success in all other aspects of the project.
34

Figure 9: Design-Build Team Flash Track Readiness Assessment of Riverside Drive Project (VDOT-developed Practices and Categories)
Figure 10: Owner Representative Flash Track Readiness Assessment of Riverside Drive Project (VDOT-developed Practices and Categories) 35

RIVERSIDE DRIVE ROUNDABOUTS PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES
Presented below are the questions the project team answered about the positives and challenges they encountered in six project readiness assessment areas. Also listed are the answers given to each question.

1. Contractual Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Contractual considerations?

Contractual Positives
Public Interest Determination allows the utility relocation to be paid for.
ROW acquisition is included in the scope of the Design-Build (D-B) contract. GDOT went ahead and identified the areas that needed to be acquired. This obviated GDOT's need to wait for the traditional period of time for the closing of all the parcels of the project.
Utilities were also included in the scope of the D-B contract.
A utility review period was allowed.

Contractual Challenges
In the case of ROW acquisition, GDOT assumed the risk of not reaching a resolution.

2. Project Delivery Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Project Delivery
considerations?

36

Project Delivery Positives
Monthly schedule updates from the D-B team helped GDOT know where they stood in terms of project delivery.
These monthly updates allowed GDOT and the City of Sandy Springs to identify the upcoming bridge closures early on and prepare for and coordinate public outreach.
Tailor-made procurement was specific to the project (one size fits one).
Another project delivery positive was having a two-stage D-B project.

Project Delivery Challenges
The budget for design and construction of landscaping was set prior to letting. The D-B team was responsible for coordinating with the City of Sandy Springs on landscaping design. It was a challenge to balance the budget for design and construction in compliance with City of Sandy Springs landscaping vision for the project.

3. Organizational Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Organizational considerations?
Organizational Positives
Getting utility owners to attend face-to-face monthly meetings to discuss utility designs and construction got them engaged with the project and with the significant subcontractors.
Stakeholder meetings for everybody involved in the project kept everybody on track and ensured their continuous engagement.

4. Cultural Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Cultural considerations?
Cultural Positives Extra efforts were made to hand out flyers and post information on city Web pages. This
heightened public outreach helped a lot. During concept development and before procurement, several meetings with the Sandy
Springs City Council and with individual council members were held to assure them that the project would not increase traffic dramatically.
37

5. Planning Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Planning considerations?

Planning Positives
Plan approvals were staged by GDOT to allow construction early on.
Construction started before the final landscape plans were completed.

Planning Challenges
This was the only interchange in the surrounding areas, which were in residential zones, while other interchanges in the region were in commercial zones. Thus, GDOT wanted to distinguish this interchange from the others nearby.

5. Execution Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Execution considerations?

Execution Positives
Notice-to-Proceed (NTP) 1 (preliminary design) and NTP 2 (final design) were done at pretty much the same time.
The number of ROW parcels acquired was minimized through the design. For example, the design eliminated the need to acquire one parcel and minimized the amount required on another.
GDOT worked intensively with the city to inform the public about the two crossings on either side of the interchange. This outreach ensured that the entire community knew about these alternative crossings.

Execution Challenges
Due to the high percentage of ROW condemnations, there were some ROW issues with the property owners.

RIVERSIDE DRIVE ROUNDABOUTS POTENTIAL BEST
PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE
After conducting interviews, facilitating discussions, and performing an independent analysis of the project, the research team created a table summarizing the potential best practices critical to the success of a Flash Track project. (See Table 12.) Moreover, these
38

potential best practices, along with descriptions of their implementation and benefits, were cross-referenced against the 47 existing CII Flash Track Best Practices and the 19 VDOT best practices. In the table, all the practices were found to have corresponding CII and VDOT best practices and, thus, none is labeled "New." This collection of practices was further analyzed through the Delphi process and AHP, ultimately to generate the GDOT Flash Track Best Practices. (See Appendix II for the full list of the CII Flash Track Best Practices, and Section 9 for all the VDOT-developed best practices.)

Table 12: Riverside Drive Roundabouts at I-285 Potential Best Practices Summary

Best Practices No. from Riverside
Roundabouts

Description

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII & VDOT Best Practices

1. Customizing Procurement to Achieve the Project Objectives

Instructions were customized for the proposers.
One of the customized components was the inclusion of the ROW acquisition in the Design-Build contract.

4. Establishing Contract Strategies Specifically Tailored to the Project Condition
10. Focusing Procurement Decisions on Construction Priorities

2. Establishing Performance-based Specifications
13. Employing Innovative Procurement Practices

2. Identifying ROW Needs in Advance

GDOT went ahead and identified the areas that needed to be acquired.
It was then a part of the scope of the contract for the Design-Build team to complete acquisition.

1. Setting Clear, 4. Establishing

Specific, Scoping Contract Strategies

Requirements Specifically Tailored

to the Project 40. Recognizing Condition and Managing the

Additional Flash 22. Having an Owner

Track Risks

with Sufficient Depth

of Resources and

Strength of

Organization

24. Having an Engaged 39

Best Practices No. from Riverside
Roundabouts
3. Conducting Extensive Public Outreach

Description

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII & VDOT Best Practices
and Empowered Owner's Engineer (Owner's Representative)

35. Performing Exhaustive Front-End Planning

50. Starting ROW Acquisition during Conceptual Design (20% To 50% Design)

Providing public outreach was one commitment for the project.
Flyers were handed out about the closures, and signs and short notice closures were put up.

55. Deploying Continual Public Outreach, Media Campaigns, and Dedicated Communications Personnel

56. Ensuring Efficient Coordination of Construction with Management of Traffic Issues
57. Establishing a Project Command Center

The city also had a website to keep the public up to date.

The outreach was even customized for some owners.

4. Making Monthly Monthly schedule Schedule Updates updates from the

47. Conducting Frequent and

53. Having a Responsible In-charge

from the Design- Design-Build team tells Effective Project Engineer/Design-

Build Team

the department where it Review Meetings Build Integrator

stands in terms of

project delivery.

40

Best Practices No. from Riverside
Roundabouts

Description

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII & VDOT Best Practices

5. Holding Face-toface Monthly Meetings with Major Stakeholders

Face-to-face monthly meetings to discuss utility designs and construction.

47. Conducting Frequent and Effective Project Review Meetings

53. Having a Responsible In-charge Engineer/DesignBuild Integrator

Getting utility owners to attend the meeting every month and engage with the project and with the significant subcontractors.

This also ensured continuous engagement of stakeholders.

Table 13 below presents the newly identified potential best practices identified from the SR 299 at I-24, Jimmy Deloach Connector, and Riverside Drive Roundabouts projects.

Table 13: Riverside Drive at I-285 New Potential Best Practices Progress

No.

Practice

1. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location.

1
2.

Considering

3D

and

4D

Modeling

of

the

Execution Sequence in 3D during Schematic

Design.

3. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence in 3D during Detailed Design.

4. Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction.

5. Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition.

6. Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in Design-Build Contract.

SR 299 I-24
SR 299 I-24 (1) SR 299 I-24 (2)
SR 299 I-24 (3)

Jimmy Riverside

Deloach

Drive

JD (1) JD (2) JD (3)

1
This practice did not make the statistical cut. (See Section 8 for more about the Delphi process and the statistical criteria used.)
41

SECTION 6 SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The purpose of this project was to replace the existing, functionally obsolete, historic truss bridge on State Route (SR) 47 over the Little River (Clarks Hill Lake). The $24 million project began at approximately Mile Post (MP) 16.25 in Lincoln County and ended at approximately MP 0.85 in Columbia County. It was initially slated for Design-Bid-Build delivery. But progress on the project was delayed by a number of environmental and design-related challenges. Because these delays made it difficult to meet the intended schedule, the GDOT Office of Innovative Delivery (OID) stepped in to determine whether any new techniques could help get the project back on track. When OID got involved, the project had been designated as a Design-Build (D-B) project, with an A+B component for procurement. This meant that bidders bid not only the cost portion, but also that a time component was involved in the selection of the Design-Build team. The idea was to allow industry bidders to propose project durations to match the means and methods they would use to perform the work.
Project Team
This Design-Build project was the product of a partnership between GDOT and the awarded Design-Build firm. The prime designer on the awarded team was Michael Baker International, and the prime contractor was Scott Bridge Company, Inc. The governmental
42

entities participating in this project were the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), GDOT OID, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Challenges The following are the numerous challenges faced during construction:
During bidding, engineering emerged as one of the major Design-Build challenges, since the project had geological conditions under water. To help the D-B teams compose their bids, GDOT obtained additional boring data.
Another challenge was an overhead power line slated for removal. Because a power outage was unacceptable, the pylon had to be taken apart in smaller sections.
The project used a standard letting process in the Design-Build process, called Special Provision (SP) 999. This process did not allow bridge removal during certain times of the year, but did not provide the rationale for this prohibition. More clarification of this rule would have been helpful.
During the posting period and during project design, GDOT did not have an approved load and resistance factor design (LRFD) bridge design software. The engineer of record requested that future projects allow the engineers to design substructures with LFRD software tools of their choosing.
43

Project Map
Figure 11: SR 47 at Little River Bridge Replacement Project Map
OVERALL SUCCESS OF SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
After considering the project positives, challenges, lessons learned, and readiness assessment scores, the researchers concluded that the SR 47 at Little River was a successful Flash Track project. Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14 present the project's Flash Track readiness scores.
ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR FLASH TRACKING
The researchers interviewed the SMEs on this project on March 17, 2017, discussing the project team's readiness to carry out this project on a Flash Track basis. With this input, the researchers identified new Flash Track best practices and documented lessons learned.
44

Meeting Attendees

Table 14 shows all the attendees to the SR 47 at Little River project meeting.

Table 14: SR 47 at Little River Meeting Attendees

Name Marlo Clowers Michael Terrell
Shane Swan Stephen Summers
Rob Lewis Albert Bowman
Rusty Merntt

Company GDOT-OID Scott Bridge Co. Inc. HNTB (GDOT Representative) Scott Bridge Co. Inc. HNTB (GDOT Representative) Michael Baker International GDOT District 2

FLASH TRACK READINESS TOOL RESULTS
Table 15 presents the overall Flash Track readiness assessments, alongside the individual assessments, completed by four of the seven participating project members: Marlo Clowers, Rob Lewis, Shane Swan, and Albert Bowman.

Table 15: SR 47 Readiness Assessment for Flash Tracking

Questions
Overall readiness, to undertake the Flash Track Project

Owners and

Design-Build

All Representatives

Team

Overall

Overall

8.5

8.1

8.4

Contractual consideration readiness

7.3

6.8

7.7

Project Delivery Consideration readiness

9.0

8.5

10.0

Organizational consideration readiness

9.2

8.9

9.7

Cultural consideration readiness

8.5

8.8

7.0

Planning consideration readiness

8.3

7.7

10.0

Execution consideration readiness

8.1

8.0

8.8

45

Project team members or their representatives were asked to assess the project using both modules of the Flash Track Readiness Toolkit (i.e., the 47 CII-developed practices/categories and the 19 VDOT-developed practices/categories). Figure 12 presents a screenshot of the Flash Track readiness results for the CII developed Flash Track categories.
Figure 12: CII Flash Track Readiness Assessment of SR 47 Bridge Figure 12 shows that the project scored highest in the Organizational and Delivery categories, which led to success in all other aspects of the project. The practice that scored the lowest (with a score of 3) was Establishing Clear Change Management Procedures in the Contractual category. Figure 13 and Figure 14 present screenshots of the Flash Track readiness results for the VDOT-developed Flash Track categories. Figure 13 shows the Design-Build team members' assessment, which found the highest level of readiness in the Contractual
46

category. The high score in this area led to success in all other aspects of the project. Figure 14 shows the owner representative's assessment, which found the highest level of readiness in the ROW category. The high score in this area led to success in all other aspects of the project.
Figure 13: Design-Build Team Flash Track Readiness Assessment of SR 47 Bridge (VDOTdeveloped Practices and Categories)
47

Figure 14: Owner Representative Flash Track Readiness Assessment of SR 47 Bridge (VDOTdeveloped Practices and Categories)
SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER PROJECT POSITIVES AND CHALLENGES
Presented below are the questions the project team answered about the positives and challenges they encountered in six project readiness assessment areas. Also listed are the answers given to each question.
48

1. Contractual Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Contractual considerations?

Contractual Positives
Inclusion of the A+B component for procurement was a positive contractual consideration.
Accepting different proposals for the project allowed the Design-Build team to find the best engineering solution for the project for the least possible cost. It also made it possible to have specialty contractors on the project.
Another contractual positive was that the commissioning of the existing bridge was part of the contract.
Early coordination with Georgia Power Transmission (GPT) occurred during development of the request for proposals (RFP). This brought about several contractual requirements including gate installation along the new mainline to the old roadbed. This provided GPT access for facility maintenance. The contract also stipulated timeframes during which GPT could not de-energize its facility.
The agreements under the project's Design-Build contract can be considered partnering (or innovative design group), which entails effective communication and the desire to collaborate. Having such agreements helped establish the mindset for doing a streamlined professional job.

Contractual Challenges
GDOT did not have an approved LRFD software tool for use on a bridge site. Only after discussions with its bridge office did GDOT review the available LRFD bridge design programs and provide a list of acceptable programs for use on GDOT projects.
One of the areas of improvement with respect to Design-Build utility coordination was early identification of high-risk utilities and the scheduling of meetings with the utility owners during RFP development.

2. Project Delivery Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Project Delivery
considerations?

49

Project Delivery Positives
A software tool called eBuilder for document management and submittal tracking accelerated review time. Training for this software program was provided as well.
As bridge plan design and ROW acquisition proceeded, the D-B team received a conditional Notice-to-Proceed 3 for construction on roadway/approach work. This characteristic flexibility of the D-B delivery model supports an accelerated project schedule.

3. Organizational Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Organizational
considerations?

Organizational Positives
Attendance was mandatory at regularly scheduled project team meetings.
A positive culture of accountability helped the D-B team finish the construction and ROW ahead of time.

Organizational Challenges
Not enough meetings were held during the design phase.

4. Cultural Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Cultural considerations?
Cultural Positives
As issues arose on the project, GDOT personnel and SMEs spent one-on-one time with project decision-makers to help move the project forward.
As a result of the early stakeholder coordination on the project, Scott Bridge had a positive relationship with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The two organizations held meetings during the development of the project's procurement documents.
The project culture fostered a solid team mindset, with all team members focused on the same goals.
In addition to fostering team alignment, the project culture engendered alignment among other stakeholders, e.g., the USACE, DNR, GDOT, and others.

50

5. Planning Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Planning considerations?

Planning Positives
The contractor provided monthly schedule updates.
Because scope, schedule, and budget were given so much consideration during planning, the team was able to overcome any complications that arose.

Planning Challenges
One of the planning challenges was that, even though the contractor provided monthly schedule updates, these updates did not include payment requests. Thus, the contractor was asked to submit invoices within seven days of these progress reports.
From a schedule perspective, the time it took to drill for drilled shafts presented a challenge to proper work sequencing.
Another challenge was in showing the completion dates beyond the contract dates. Solutions included an option of forcing the completion date to meet the contract date, which, in short, meant creating a second schedule. However, the dates were later shown beyond the contract date, and an explanation was sought from the D-B team.

6. Execution Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Execution considerations?

Execution Positives
Construction-driven designs were key to interfacing with USACE.
Early coordination with USACE contributed a great deal to project success. While the project was under environmental re-evaluation, construction was allowed to proceed unhindered.
GDOT met all project review deadlines. Even USACE and FHWA expedited their review times to some extent.

Execution Challenges
The D-B team sometimes felt that the GDOT oversight was excessive.

51

Execution Positives
The re-design of one of the bents of the bridge (Bent 12) helped the D-B team save time and meet the project completion date. The existing truss bridge was removed without affecting the operations of the Georgia Power distribution line running alongside it.

Execution Challenges

SR 47 AT LITTLE RIVER POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY TABLE
After conducting interviews, facilitating discussions, and performing an independent analysis of the project, the research team created a table summarizing the potential best practices critical to the success of a Flash Track project. (See Table 16.) Moreover, these potential best practices, along with descriptions of their implementation and benefits, were cross-referenced against the 47 existing CII Flash Track Best Practices and the 19 VDOTdeveloped best practices. All the practices were found to have corresponding CII and VDOT best practices and, thus, none is labeled "New" in the table. This collection of practices was further analyzed through the Delphi process and AHP, ultimately to generate the GDOT Best Practices. (See Appendix II for the full list of the CII best practices, and Section 9 for all the VDOT best practices.)

52

Table 16: SR 47 Bridge Replacement Potential Best Practices Summary Table

No.

Best Practices from SR 47

Description

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII & VDOT Best Practices

1. Including an

This meant that bidders bid 13. Employing

-

A+B Component not only on the cost

Innovative

for Procurement, portion, but that a bid on a Procurement

in the D-B

time component was also Practices

Contract

taken into consideration in

the selection of the D-B

team.

GDOT wanted to complete the project as quickly as possible, and the A+B component helped in this regard.

Since the scope of this project was a bit complex, adding the A+B component in the contract helped the D-B compete beyond just the low-bid competition.

2. Conducting

Initial meetings with two 47. Conducting 53. Having a

Initial Meetings primary stakeholders

Frequent and Responsible In-charge

with Primary (USACE and Georgia

Effective Project Engineer/D-B

Stakeholders

Power) helped, because the Review

Integrator

Flash Track concept and Meetings

project goals were

explained during the

meetings. Their

understanding helped in

the long run.

53

No.

Best Practices from SR 47

Description

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII & VDOT Best Practices

3. Holding Each Other Accountable in Monthly Meetings

The positive culture of accountability in monthly project progress meetings helped the D-B team finish construction and ROW ahead of time.
Ensuring that everyone attended regular project team, ready to hold each other accountable, helped speed up the progress.

47. Conducting Frequent and Effective Project Review Meetings

8. Reducing Risks through Collective Efforts of All Stakeholders
26. Accepting a Nontraditional Paradigm Or Mindset
30. Having Open Communication and Transparency

32. Having an Openminded Team

4. Using the Digital A paperless document

65. Utilizing an 42. Simplifying

Document

management system called Integrated

Approval Procedures

Management eBuilder was used to track Document

System to Track the submittals.

Management

Submittals

System for

By automating the review Tracking RFIs,

process, this software tool QA/QC,

accelerates review time. Submittals, and

Training and use of this tool was provided for in

Other Documents

the RFP.

54

No.

Best Practices from SR 47

Description

Corresponding CII & VDOT Best Practices

Relevant CII & VDOT Best Practices

5. Ensuring Early Stakeholder Coordination

Scott Bridge had a positive relationship with USACE, which was a result of the early stakeholder coordination.
These two organizations held meetings during the development of the procurement documents for the project.

48. Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners
51. Having Early Utility and ROW Coordination; Engaging Construction Personnel during Design and during Environmental Document Preparation, Etc.

8. Reducing Risks through Collective Efforts of All Stakeholders
15. Involving Contractors, Trades, and Vendors in the Design Phase
17. Engaging Operations and Maintenance Personnel in the Development and Design Process

34. Emphasizing Coordination Planning during the Design Process

56. Ensuring Efficient Coordination of Construction with Management of Traffic Issues

6. Creating a Solid Not just project team

3. Aligning

1. Setting Clear,

and Aligned

members, but other

Project

Specific Scoping

Project Team stakeholders (e.g.,

Participants'

Requirements

with a Mindset USACE, DNR, GDOT, Interests through

of Working

and others) were aligned Contract

Together on the towards a common project

Same Goal

goal.

33. Creating

Executive

Alignment

among the

Contracted

Parties

55

Table 17 presents the newly identified potential best practices identified from the SR 299 at I-24 project, the Jimmy Deloach Connector project, the Riverside Drive Roundabouts project, and the SR-47 at Little River project.

Table 17: SR 47 Bridge New Potential Best Practices Progress

No.

Practice

1. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location

1
2.

Considering 3D and 4D Modeling

of the Execution Sequence during

Schematic Design

3. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design

4. Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction

5. Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition

6. Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in D-B Contract

SR 299 at I-24
SR 299 I-24 (1) SR 299 I-24 (2)
SR 299 I-24 (3)

Jimmy Deloach
JD (1) JD (2) JD (3)

Riverside Drive

SR 47

1
This practice did not make the statistical cut. (See Section 8 for more about the Delphi process and the statistical criteria used.)
56

SECTION 7 - LITERATURE REVIEW OVERVIEW
An extensive literature review was conducted to identify fast track practices that could facilitate Flash Track efforts. The TRB, FHWA, and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) databases were a few of the sources for the journals reviewed. Although the review yielded 43 potential Flash Track practices, not all of them were new. The concepts underlying a few of these new practices also underpinned the existing 47 CII-developed practices and 19 VDOT-developed practices. Pursuing the research objective of identifying new and different Flash Track practices, the researchers did a side-by-side comparison of the 43 new practices and the 66 previously developed CII and VDOT practices, discarding any redundant practices. In addition to performing this cross-verification, the research team held a few brainstorming sessions to distill the remaining practices. As a result of this process, the team was able to reduce the set of 43 new practices to 13, discarding the other 30 that corresponded with existing practices. Table 18 lists these 13 new practices. These practices were further analyzed through the Delphi Process and AHP, to generate Flash Track best practices for GDOT.
57

Table 18: Literature Review Potential Best Practices

Potential Best Practices
Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Time-critical Elements Considering Ongoing Operations When Planning and Scheduling a Brownfield Construction Project Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning Providing an Extended Mobilization Period
Using Pre-construction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select Alternative Project Scenarios
Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement, Given Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors

Source Transportation Research Board: Journal of the Transportation Research Board [9]
Transportation Research Board: Journal of the Transportation Research Board [13] Federal Highway Administration [14]

Pre-fabricating Project Elements That Are on the Critical Path
Considering Both Inter-phase and Intra-phase Concurrency for Design and Construction Packages

Federal Highway Administration [14]
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Pipelines Division Specialty Conference 2006 [15]

Considering Innovative Construction Materials That American Society of Civil Engineers

Accelerate Construction

(ASCE): Structures Congress 2006 [16]

Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering
Building Mock-ups of Pre-fabricated Components to Address Potential Constructability Challenges Prior to Shipping Implementing Construction-driven Design Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Pipelines 2014 [17]
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities [18]
2014 Design Training Expo [19]
Federal Highway Administration: Public Roads Magazine [20]

Table 19 presents the newly identified potential best practices identified from the SR 299 at I-24 project, the Jimmy Deloach Connector project, the Riverside Drive Roundabouts project, the SR 47 at Little River project, and the literature review.
58

Table 19: New Best Practices Progress from Literature Review

No.

Practice

1. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location

1
2.

Considering 3D and 4D

Modeling of the Execution

Sequence during Schematic

Design

3. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design

4. Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction.

5. Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition

6. Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in D-B Contract

7. Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Timecritical Elements

2
8.

Considering Ongoing

Operations When Planning and

Scheduling a Brownfield

Construction Project

9. Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning

10.3 Providing an Extended Mobilization Period

11. Using Pre-construction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select Alternative Project Scenarios

12. Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of PCC Pavement, Given Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors

13. Pre-fabricating Project Elements That Are on the Critical Path

SR 299 I-24
SR 299 I-24 (1) SR 299 I-24 (2) SR 299 I-24 (3)
59

Jimmy Deloach

Riverside Drive

SR 47

Lit Review

JD (1) JD (2) JD (3)

LR (1) LR (2)
LR (3) LR (4) LR (5)
LR (6)
LR (7)

No.

Practice

14. Considering Both Inter-phase and Intra-phase Concurrency for Design and Construction Packages
15. Considering Innovative Construction Materials That Accelerate Construction
16. Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering
17.4 Building Mock-ups of Prefabricated Components to Address Potential Constructability Challenges Prior to Its Shipping
18. Implementing Constructiondriven Design
19. Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects

SR 299 I-24

Jimmy Deloach

Riverside Drive

SR 47

Lit Review
LR (8)

LR (9) LR (10) LR (11)

LR (12) LR (13)

1,2,3,4
This practice did not make the statistical cut. (See Section 8 for more about the Delphi Process and the statistical criteria used.)
60

SECTION 8 - DELPHI PROCESS AND VALIDATION
The majority of the data analysis was conducted during a meeting hosted by GDOT in June 2017. At this meeting, the researchers conducted the Delphi Process, performed validation, and gave a brief overview of the AHP method.
VALIDATION PROCESS AND FINAL SELECTION
The Delphi Process was used to validate each new best practice. Through this technique, the research team elicited the opinions of a panel of subject matter experts to obtain a group response to each practice [21]. Achieving this group consensus on the practices was critical to determining whether the practices were essential to Flash Tracking. The researchers conducted the process by preparing a questionnaire addressing the 13 practices from the literature review and the six practices distilled from the structured interviews. The experts were asked to assess how essential they considered each practice for Flash Tracking, on a six-point Likert scale. The values of the scale were as follows: 1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Moderately Disagree; 4-Moderately Agree; 5-Agree; 6-Strongly Agree. A practice with score of "6" meant that it was highly essential for Flash Tracking. Appendix I presents the Delphi session questionnaire.
ADDITIONAL BEST PRACTICES FROM SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
To encourage feedback and suggestions from the SMEs, a section at the end of the questionnaire sought additional feedback. The respondents' comments and suggestions led
61

to the identification of two additional new practices. A thorough cross-verification of these two practices against the 47 existing CII best practices and 19 VDOT best practices was performed to ensure that these practices were in fact new. A new Delphi questionnaire was prepared for these two practices, and the experts were asked to rate the degree to which these practices were essential to Flash Tracking, using the six-point Likert scale. Table 20 presents these two new practices.
Table 20: GDOT Best Practices from Validation Collecting Accurate Geotechnical (Sub-surface) Data to Reduce Risk. Making Timely Decisions through the Use of Workshops.
ADDITIONAL BEST PRACTICES PROGRESS SUMMARY
Table 21 presents the newly identified potential Flash Track best practices identified from the SR 299 at I-24 project, the Jimmy Deloach Connector project, the Riverside Drive Roundabouts project, the SR 47 at Little River project, the literature review, and the validation process.
62

Table 21: GDOT New Best Practices Validation Process

No.

Practice

1. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location
2. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Schematic Design

SR 299 I-24
SR 299 I-24 (1)
SR 299 I-24 (2)

Jimmy Deloach

Riverside Drive

SR 47

Lit Review

Validation

3. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design

SR 299 I-24
(3)

4. Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction

JD (1)

5. Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition

JD (2)

6. Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in the D-B Contract
7. Using Existing Openended Contracts to Procure Time-critical Elements
8. Considering Ongoing Operations When Planning and Scheduling a Brownfield Construction Project
9. Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning
10. Providing an Extended Mobilization Period
11. Using Pre-Construction Analysis Software to

JD (3) 63

LR (1) LR (2)
LR (3) LR (4) LR (5)

No.

Practice

Evaluate and Select Alternative Project Scenarios
12. Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement, Given Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors
13. Pre-fabricating Project Elements That Are on the Critical Path
14. Considering Both Interphase and Intra-phase Concurrency for Design and Construction Packages

SR 299 I-24

Jimmy Deloach

Riverside Drive

SR 47

Lit Review

Validation

LR (6)

LR (7) LR (8)

15. Considering Innovative Construction Materials That Accelerate Construction
16. Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering

LR (9) LR (10)

17 Building Mock-ups of Pre-fabricated Components to Address Potential Constructability Challenges Prior to Shipping

LR (11)

18. Implementing Construction-driven Design

LR (12)

19. Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects
20. Collecting Accurate Geotechnical (Subsurface) Data to Reduce Risk

LR (13) V (1)

64

No.

Practice

21. Making Timely Decisions through the Use of Workshops

SR 299 I-24

Jimmy Deloach

Riverside Drive

SR 47

Lit Review

Validation V (2)

FINAL SELECTION
Once the subject matter experts completed their evaluations, the results were analyzed statistically. In this analysis, the research team calculated a mean, mode, and standard deviation for each practice. To reach consensus on whether any of the 21 practices are essential for Flash Tracking, the researchers used the following scoring criteria for each one:
a. A mode of 5 (Agree) or 6 (Strongly agree). b. A standard deviation of less than 1 (if the mode is 5), and less than 2 (if the mode
is 6).
Given these criteria, the statistical outer limit (1) of the collective responses would be at least 4 (moderately agree). Based on the combinations of these criteria, four out of the 21 practices were discarded (highlighted in gray in Table 22.) The remaining 17 were verified through the Delphi Process as new Flash Track practices.

65

Practice Number

Table 22: GDOT Validation Process Results Number of Responses

Mode St. Dev.

Strongl y Disagree
1 Disagree
2 Moderatel y
Disagree 3
Moderatel y Agre e 4 Agre e 5
Strongl y Agre e 6

1

0

0

2

0

4

0

5

0.9

2

0

1

1

2

1

1

4

1.3

3

0

1

0

1

2

2

5&6

1.4

4

0

0

0

2

2

2

5

0.8

5

0

0

0

2

3

1

5

0.7

6

0

0

0

0

1

5

6

0.4

7

0

1

0

0

2

3

6

1.4

8

0

0

0

4

0

2

4

0.9

9

0

0

0

2

2

2

4&5&6 0.7

10

0

0

2

3

1

0

4

0.8

11

0

0

1

1

4

0

5

0.5

12

0

0

2

0

3

1

5

0.9

13

0

0

0

1

4

1

5

0.6

14

0

0

0

1

2

3

6

0.7

15

0

0

0

2

2

2

4&5&6 0.8

16

0

0

0

1

1

4

6

0.8

17

0

0

0

3

2

1

4

0.7

18

0

0

0

2

2

2

4&5&6 0.8

19

0

0

0

0

1

5

6

0.4

20

0

0

0

1

3

2

5

0.7

21

0

0

1

0

5

0

5

0.7

Criteria for acceptance: St.Dev. < 1, if the Mode is 5; St.Dev. < 2, if the Mode is 6.

66

SECTION 9 RESULTS
BEST PRACTICES CATEGORIES BY GDOT
The Construction Industry Institute developed 47 Flash Track Best Practices. These practices are divided into six categories: 1) Planning; 2) Execution; 3) Organizational; 4) Cultural; 5) Delivery; and 6) Contractual. In this research, the new GDOT Flash Track Best Practices are divided into four new categories: 1) Right-of-Way and Utilities Considerations; 2) Contractual Considerations; 3) Planning/Evaluation/Environmental Considerations; and 4) Execution Considerations. Table 23 presents the practices in each category, numbering them in a sequence starting after the 66 combined CII and VDOT practices.
Table 23: GDOT New Best Practices Categories ROW & Utilities
67 Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition 68 Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in Design-Build Contract 69 Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering
Contractual 70 Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Time-critical Elements
Planning, Evaluation, Environmental 71 Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design 72 Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction 73 Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning 74 Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects 75 Gathering Accurate Geotechnical (Sub-surface) Data to Reduce Risk
Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of PCC Pavement, Given Design, Construction, and 76
Environmental Factors Considering Both Inter-phase and Intra-phase Concurrency for Design and Construction 77 Packages
67

Execution 78 Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location 79 Using Pre-construction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select Alternate Project Scenarios 80 Pre-Fabricating Project Elements That Are on the Critical Path 81 Considering Innovative Construction Materials That Accelerate Construction 82 Implementing Construction-driven Design 83 Making Timely Decisions through the Use of Workshops
68

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP)
The seventeen new practices were divided into four categories: 1) Right-of-Way and Utilities; 2) Contractual; 3) Planning, Evaluation, and Environmental; and 4) Execution. The SMEs used an Excel spreadsheet with AHP calculations to make comparisons between all possible pairs of practices in each category. These pairwise comparisons were made on a nine-point scale. Table 24 defines each of the values on this scoring scale [10].

Table 24: AHP Scoring for GDOT Best Practices

Score

Definition

1 Equal importance of practices

3

Moderate importance of one practice over another

5

Strong importance of one practice over another

7

Very strong importance of one practice over another

9

Extreme importance of one practice over another

2,4,6,8 Intermediate importance values

Explanation
The practices are equally important.
One practice is slightly more important than another. One practice is strongly favored over another. One practice is very strongly favored over another. One practice is favored over another to the highest possible extent.
Middle values between the odd number scores

Using their knowledge, experience, and judgment, the SMEs gave a score for every pairwise comparison. Table 25 provides an example of pairwise comparisons of three practices. The comparison scores were carefully formulated in a matrix, such as the one shown in Figure 15. All diagonal elements of the matrix have a value of 1, because they represent a comparison of the same practices. The elements below the diagonal elements are the reciprocals of the elements above the diagonal.

69

Table 25: AHP Comparison Table for GDOT Best Practices

Extreme Importance Very Strong Importance
Strong Importance Moderat e Importance
Equal Importance Moderat e Importance
Strong Importance Very Strong Importance
Extreme Importance

Practice Number

PN

PN 1

9

7

5

3

1

3

5

7

9 PN 2

PN 1

9

7

5

3

1

3

5

7

9 PN 3

PN 2

9

7

5

3

1

3

5

7

9 PN 3

1 2 3

1 1





2 1/ 1

3 [ 1/ 1/ 1]

Figure 15: Pairwise Comparison Matrix To ensure thoughtful comparisons of the practices, meeting attendees were given one week to complete their assessments. Software developed by the research team was used to input the comparison scores and calculate the weights. This calculation involved raising the matrix values by a power of 10, summing the values in each row, and then dividing each sum by the total sum of all the rows. Moreover, to keep the comparisons in check, a consistency ratio of 0.1 was not to be exceeded. The software calculated the consistency as soon as the comparison scores were input, which helped AHP participants become aware of any inconsistencies in their comparisons immediately. The calculation of the geometric mean of all the weights from all AHP participants gave the final weights for the practices.

70

AHP Participants After the pairwise comparisons had been made, AHP was used to rank the new GDOTspecific best practices. Seven SMEs were selected to perform the AHP process (See Table 26).

Table 26: AHP Participants for GDOT Best Practices

Name

Company

Saurabh Bhattacharya Ryan Graves Marlo Clowers
Andrew Hoenig Shane Swan Brian Woods
Albert Bowman

Parsons Transportation Group Inc. Arcadis
GDOT-OID GDOT-OID
HNTB Archer Western Michael Baker International

Each participant completed a full comparison of practices in each category. Once all of the participants had submitted their results, the researchers could rank the new best practices, assigning weight to the practices within each category, and to the categories themselves.

AHP Results After performing the weighting calculations for the 17 new GDOT-developed best practices, the research team assigned an identification number to each one, continuing the sequence of the 66 practices previously developed by CII and VDOT. Therefore, the 17 GDOT-developed best practices start at number 67 and end at number 83. Table 27 shows the final results of this process. Since the Contractual category has only one practice, a pair-wise comparison was not possible. This practice (number 70) was, therefore, compared with the three in the
71

Contractual category of the VDOT-developed set of practices (practices 52, 53, and 54). This cross-comparison was consistent with the researchers' long-term plans of combining the VDOT and GDOT Flash Track practices into a single set within the appropriate categories.
To show the importance of the practices in each category, the practices are listed with their respective weights (See Table 27). As the table shows, practices 69, 53, 75, and 82 were the most important in their respective categories.

Table 27: GDOT Flash Track Best Practices and their AHP Weights

ROW & Utilities 67 Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition
Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in 68
Design-Build Contract 69 Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering

Weight 14.8% 38.0% 47.3%

Consistency Ratio

0.000

Contractual Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion (VDOT 52 practice)

Weight 21.5%

Having a Responsible In-charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator 53
(VDOT practice)

47.5%

Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items As a Means of Risk Sharing

54

18.0%

(VDOT practice)

70 Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Time-critical Elements 12.9%

Consistency Ratio

0.005

72

Planning, Evaluation, Environmental

Weight

Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during 71
Detailed Design

7.2%

72 Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction

22.5%

73 Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning

14.8%

74 Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects

13.7%

75 Collecting Accurate Geotechnical (Sub-surface) Data to Reduce Risk

23.1%

Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of PCC Pavement, Given the 76
Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors

9.4%

Considering Both Inter-phase and Intra-phase Concurrency for Design and

77

9.3%

Construction Packages

Consistency Ratio

Execution

0.009 Weight

78 Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location

8.5%

Using Pre-construction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select 79
Alternative Project Scenarios

6.7%

80 Pre-fabricating Project Elements That Are on the Critical Path

20.1%

Considering Innovative Construction Materials that Accelerate 81
Construction

17.2%

82 Implementing Construction-driven Design

28.0%

83 Making Timely Decisions through the Use of Workshops

19.3%

Consistency Ratio

0.011

Figure 16 presents the organizational structure for the GDOT-developed best practices and their weights.

73

Flash Track Best Practices for GDOT

ROW & Utilities

Contractual

Planning, Evaluation, and Environmental

67. Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition (14.8%)
68. Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in DesignBuild Contract (38.0%)
69. Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering (47.3%)

70. Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Timecritical Elements (12.9%)
52. Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion (21.5%)- (VDOT practice)
53. Having a Responsible inCharge Engineer/DesignBuild Integrator (47.5%)- (VDOT practice)
54. Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items as a Means of Risk Sharing (18.0%)(VDOT practice)

71. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design (7.2%)
72. Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction (22.5%)
73. Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning (14.8%)
74. Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects (13.7%)
75. Gathering Accurate Geotechnical (Subsurface) Data to Reduce Risk (23.1%)
76. Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of PCC Pavement, Given the Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors (9.4%)
77. Considering Both Inter-phase and Intraphase Concurrency for Design and Construction Packages (9.3%)

Execution
78. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location (8.5%)
79. Using Preconstruction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select Alternate Project Scenarios (6.7%)
80. Pre-fabricating Project Elements That Are on the Critical Path (20.1%)
81. Considering Innovative Construction Materials That Accelerate Construction (17.2%)
82. Implementing Construction-driven Designs (28.0%)
83. Making Timely Decisions through the Use of Workshops (19.3%)

Figure 16: Organizational Structure for GDOT Best Practices 74

RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR GDOT BEST PRACTICES
During a meeting hosted by GDOT on June 26, 2017, six representatives of stakeholders from four GDOT Flash Track projects participated in a charrette, to collectively identify the risks, barriers, and risk mitigation strategies for each of the 17 new Flash Track practices. (See Table 28 for a list of the charrette participants.) The researchers compiled detailed descriptions of these risks, barriers, and mitigation strategies in the Playbook (See Appendix III). The toolkit provides their detailed descriptions of implementation measures for each practice (See Appendix IV).

Table 28: Participants in the Risk Identification Meeting

Name Saurabh Bhattacharya
Ryan Graves Andrew Hoenig Thomas Montgomery Marlo Clowers
Shane Swan

Company Parsons Transportation Group Inc.
Arcadis GDOT-OID Michael Baker International GDOT-OID
HNTB

75

BEST PRACTICES CATEGORIES DEVELOPED BY VDOT
This section summarizes the research that was carried out by professors Dr. Jesus M. de la Garza and Dr. Pardis Pishdad-Bozorgi in collaboration with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC). This research focused on identifying, assessing, and validating best practices crucial for the successful completion of accelerated, or Flash Track, construction projects.
Research Methods Research methods included data collection through a literature review and structured interviews with VDOT Flash Track project personnel. To identify Flash Track best practices uniquely applicable to VDOT projects, the researchers used the content of the 47 previously developed CII Flash Track Best Practices as a startup platform--first, to verify their applicability to VDOT project operations, and second, to expand them. To identify new Flash Track best practices, the research team conducted case studies of two VDOT projects that were changed from traditional to Flash Track delivery: the I-95 Expressway Lanes project, which produced four new best practices; and the US 29 Solutions project, from which seven new practices were identified. Furthermore, the research team collected seven additional best practices from its review of the literature on accelerated project delivery. Subsequently, during a Delphi-method validation session to determine the essentiality of these practices for Flash Tracking, SMEs identified three additional best practices. The statistical analysis performed on the results from the Delphi study disqualified two of the 21 new best practices, leaving a total of 19 new VDOTspecific Flash Track best practices.
76

Finally, the research team developed an Excel-based VDOT-specific Flash Track toolkit module to help stakeholders assess their readiness to undertake Flash Track projects. This module was added to the previously developed CII Flash Track Readiness Assessment Toolkit, which contained the 47 original CII Flash Track Best Practices.
Research Layout After a thorough investigation of these case study projects, along with a comprehensive literature review and input from VDOT SMEs, 19 new best practices were identified. These 19 new best practices needed to be incorporated into the CII Flash Track Toolkit and implemented on projects for Flash Tracking success. The researchers assigned new identification numbers to the 19 new practices, following the sequence of the first 47 CII practices. Thus, the 19 VDOT-developed best practices start at number 48 and end at number 66. Lastly, the AHP method was used to determine the relative importance of these newly identified best practices. Every category lists the practices according to their weights. Practices 50, 52, 55, 58, 63, and 64 were the most important in their respective categories. Nevertheless, the weights are only an indication of a practice's importance within its respective category. To pursue a successful Flash Track project, a fulsome implementation of all the practices, with the utmost care, is of the essence. The final VDOT results are shown in Table 29 and Figure 17.
77

Table 29: VDOT Flash Track Best Practices and their AHP Weights

Categories Right-of-Way and Utilities Contractual Operations and Public Engagement Planning, Evaluation, Environmental Safety Execution

Weight 14.1% 13.4% 10.4% 16.4% 26.6% 19.1% Consistency Ratio 0.012

ROW and Utilities

Weight

48 Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners

30.5%

49 Having a Dedicated Utility Manager Consultants for VDOT and the Designer-Constructor Team

13.5%

50 Starting ROW Acquisition During Conceptual Design (20% to 50% Design) 33.3%

51 Having Early Utility and ROW Coordination; Engaging Construction Personnel during Design and during Environmental Document Preparation, Etc.

22.7%

Consistency Ratio 0.003

Contractual

Weight

52 Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion

41.8%

53 Having a Responsible In-Charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator

38.9%

54 Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items As a Means of Risk Sharing

19.3%

Consistency Ratio 0.006

78

Operations and Public Engagement

Weight

55 Deploying Continual Public Outreach, Media Campaigns, and Dedicated Communications Personnel

45.5%

56 Ensuring Efficient Coordination of Construction with Management of Traffic Issues

41.6%

57 Establishing a Project Command Center

12.9%

Consistency Ratio 0.001

Planning, Evaluation, Environmental

Weight

58 Conducting Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel

63.6%

59 Establishing Programmatic Agreements to Streamline the Process for Handling Routine Environmental Requirements

12.6%

60 Having a 30-Day State-owned Float Activity As a Predecessor to the Scheduled Completion Date, to Absorb Critical Delaying Events Occasioned by the State.

23.8%

Consistency Ratio 0.004

Safety

Weight

61 Establishing a Shuttle Bus Service for Construction Workers from a Common Parking Lot to the Jobsite

11.2%

62 Implementing Smarter Work Zones to Dynamically Manage Traffic and Reduce Work Zone Impacts

27.0%

63 Ensuring Worker/Public Health and Safety

61.8%

Consistency Ratio 0.000

79

Execution

Weight

64 Developing a Planned Issue Resolution Process

42.6%

65 Utilizing an Integrated Document Management System for Tracking RFIs, QA/QC, Submittals, Etc.

30.8%

66 Utilizing a Lane Closure Time Bank

26.6%

Consistency Ratio 0.001

80

Flash Track Best Practices for VDOT

ROW & Utilities (14.1%)
48. Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners (30.5%)
49. Having Dedicated Utility Manager Consultants for VDOT and DesignerConstructor Team (13.5%)
50. Starting ROW Acquisition during Conceptual Design (33.3%)

Contractual (13.4%)
52. Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion (41.8%)
53. Having a Responsible InCharge Engineer/DesignBuild Integrator (38.9%)
54. Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items as a Means of Risk Sharing (19.3%)

Operations & Public Engagement
Considerations (10.4%)
55. Deploying Continual Public Outreach, Media Campaigns, and Dedicated Communications Personnel (45.5%)
56. Ensuring Efficient Coordination of Construction with Management of Traffic Issues (41.6%)
57. Establishing a Project Command Center (12.9%)

51. Having Early Utility and ROW Coordination (22.7%)

Planning, Evaluations, & Environmental
Considerations (16.4%)
58. Conducting Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel (63.6%)
59. Establishing Programmatic Agreements to Streamline the Process for Handling Routine Environmental Requirements (12.6%)
60. Having a 30-Day State-owned Float Activity As a Predecessor to the Scheduled Completion Date, to Absorb Critical Delaying Events Occasioned by the State (23.8%)

Safety Considerations
(26.6%)
61. Establishing a Shuttle Bus Service for Construction Workers from a Common Parking Lot to the Jobsite (11.2%)
62. Implementing Smarter Work Zones to Dynamically Manage Traffic and Reduce Work Zone Impacts (27.0%)
63. Ensuring Worker/Public Health and Safety (61.8%)

Execution (19.1%)
64. Developing a Planned Issue Resolution Process (42.6%)
65. Utilizing Integrated Document Management System for Tracking RFIs, QA/QC, Submittals, etc. (30.8%)
66. Utilizing a Lane Closure Time Bank (26.6%)

Figure 17: Organizational Structure for VDOT Best Practices

xDOT FLASH TRACK TOOLKIT
GDOT and VDOT best practices were combined into one consolidated framework, called xDOT, to provide a source for the best practices for flash-track transportation projects.

To create the xDOT framework, the VDOT (19) and GDOT (17) best practices were reorganized and grouped into a new set of categories: 1) ROW and Utilities; 2) Preconstruction; 3) Contractual; 4) Planning; 5) Information Management; 6) Execution; and 7) Traffic Management. As shown in Table 30, four out of these seven categories were also defined for VDOT and GDOT (ROW and Utilities, Contractual, Planning, and Execution).

VDOT Categories
1. ROWand Utilities 2. Contractual 3. Operations & Public
Engagement 4. Planning, Evaluation,
Environmental 5. Safety 6. Execution

Table 30: Flash Track Categories

GDOT Categories
1. ROWand Utilities 2. Contractual 3. Planning, Evaluation,
Environmental 4. Execution

xDOT Categories
1. ROW and Utilities 2. Pre-construction 3. Contractual 4. Planning 5. Information Management 6. Execution 7. Traffic Management

The seven xDOT categories were defined after grouping the 36 best practices according to their similarities or relation. To avoid having an excessive number of comparisons to make in the AHP process, the research team determined that each category should have no more than six best practices. This limit also ensured that the categories were all similar in size . Still, the similarities between the best practices and their relevance to the categories were the main logic for their groupings.
After assigning the new best practices to the xDOT categories, the research team gave them their new identification numbers, following the sequence of the first 47 CII

82

practices. Thus, the 36 xDOT best practices start at number 48 and end at number 83. Table 31 provides the old and new numbering for this combined set of new best practices.

Table 31: Old and New Numbering for xDOT Best Practices

Source VDOT GDOT

Practice Number

Old (Figures 16 & 17)

New xDOT (Figure 19)

48

48

49

50

50

53

51

49

52

52

53

58

54

51

55

60

56

58

57

61

58

62

59

80

60

78

61

76

62

54

63

56

64

63

65

64

66

65

67

82

68

69

69

55

70

66

71

67

72

77

73

83

74

81

75

70

76

71

77

79

78

68

79

57

80

72

81

73

82

74

83

75

83

The xDOT best practices are shown in Table 32.
Table 32: xDOT Best Practices Categories
ROW and Utilities 48 Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners 49 Having Early Utility and ROW Coordination 50 Having Dedicated Utility Manager Consultants for xDOT and the Designer-
Constructor Team 51 Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering 52 Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition 53 Starting ROW Acquisition during Conceptual Design (20% - 50% Design)
Pre-Construction 54 Conducting Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel 55 Gathering Accurate Geotechnical (Sub-surface) Data to Reduce Risk 56 Establishing Programmatic Agreements to Streamline the Process for Handling
Routine Environmental Requirements 57 Using Pre-construction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select Alternative Project
Scenarios
Contractual 58 Having a Responsible In-charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator 59 Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in Design-Build
Contract 60 Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion 61 Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items As a Means of Risk Sharing 62 Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Time-critical Elements
Planning 63 Having a 30-Day State-Owned Float Activity As a Predecessor to the Scheduled
Completion Date, to Absorb Critical Delays Occasioned by the State 64 Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design 65 Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction. 66 Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
Pavement, Given the Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors
84

Planning 67 Considering Both Inter-phase and Intra-phase Concurrency for Design and
Construction Packages 68 Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location
Information Management 69 Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects 70 Developing a Planned Issue Resolution Process 71 Utilizing an Integrated Document Management System for Tracking Requests for
Information (RFIs), QA/QC, Submittals, and Other Time-Sensitive Documents
Execution 72 Pre-Fabricating Project Elements That Are on The Critical Path 73 Considering Innovative Construction Materials that Accelerate Construction 74 Implementing Construction-driven Design 75 Making Timely Decisions through the Use Of Workshops 76 Establishing a Project Command Center 77 Establishing a Shuttle Bus Service for Construction Workers, Take Them from a
Common Parking Lot to the Job Site
Traffic Management 78 Ensuring Efficient Coordination of Construction with the Management of Traffic
Issues 79 Utilizing a Lane Closure Time Bank 80 Deploying Continual Public Outreach, Media Campaigns, and Dedicated
Communications Personnel 81 Ensuring Worker/Public Health and Safety 82 Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning 83 Implementing Smarter Work Zones to Dynamically Manage Traffic and Reduce Work
Zone Impacts
85

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for xDOT
Using the Business Performance Management Singapore (BPMSG) AHP Online System (https://www.bpmsg.com/), the research team deployed the Analytic Hierarchy Process to perform pairwise comparisons and determine the relative weights of each practice. This tool works entirely on the cloud, establishing a centralized online repository of information through the BPMSG website. This online platform provides access to stakeholders to complete their pairwise comparisons. To develop a hierarchy for this online data entry, the research team used the defined structure for the seven categories of the 36 new best practices.
The pairwise comparison process involved the stakeholders selecting the most important best practice in each pair, and then assessing the extent to which the practice selected is more important than the one not selected. Table 33 presents an example of a pairwise comparison, and Table 34 shows the AHP scoring rubric. This process was iterative for all possible pairwise comparisons in a category until all comparisons were made.

Table 33: Pairwise Comparison Example for xDOT Best Practices

Preferred Best Practice Equal

How much more?

Practice 1 or Practice 2

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

To establish the relevance and congruence of the data, the online tool also verified the Consistency Ratio (CR) of the expert input. The CR should be no more than 10 percent. The AHP process was developed to compare the best practices for each category and also to compare the categories.

86

Table 34: AHP Scoring for xDOT Best Practices

Score

Definition

Explanation

1 3 5 7 9 2,4,6,8

Equal importance
Moderate importance of one practice over another
Strong importance of one practice over another
Very strong importance of one practice over another
Extreme importance of one practice over another
Intermediate importance values

The practices are equally important
One practice is slightly more important over another
One practice is strongly favored over another
One practice is very strongly favored over another
One practice is favored over another to the highest possible extent
Middle values between the odd number scores

After the experts submitted their input, the online tool processed the inputs and assigned the weights for each best practice and categories.

AHP Participants

Fourteen subject matter experts performed the AHP ranking of the xDOT best practices. Seven of them were part of VDOT and the other seven were part of GDOT (see Table 35). Each participant completed a full comparison of each category. Once all participants had submitted their assessments, the AHP online tool automatically computed the weights for the practices and the categories.

Table 35: AHP Participants for xDOT Best Practices

Name Christiana Briganti Dunn
Hal Jones Helen Cuervo James Loftus John Lynch

District VDOT VDOT VDOT VDOT VDOT

87

Name
Bill Cuttler Scott Fisher Dustin O'Quinn Rob Lewis Marlo Clowers Thomas Montgomery Richard O'Hara Andrew Hoenig Shane Swan

District
VDOT VDOT GDOT- HNTB GDOT- HNTB GDOT-OID Michael Baker International GDOT-OID GDOT-OID GDOT-HNTB

AHP Results
The 14 SMEs from VDOT and GDOT assessed the relative importance of the 36 xDOT Flash Track practices, based on their knowledge and experience, determining which practice and category are more important than the other.
Table 36 shows the results of the AHP group consensus for the xDOT Categories. The consensus indicator specifies the agreement on the category priorities between the 14 SMEs. If the value is below 50 percent, there was no consensus among the participants. This was the case of the Contractual category. The average group consensus for all the categories was 64.1 percent (Moderate), with a Consistency Ratio (CR) of 0.5 percent. Planning was the category with the highest level of agreement between the SMEs (76.8 percent). Information (Info) Management and Contractual were the categories with the lowest level of agreement, 54.5 and 49.9 percent respectively. Since the CR obtained for all seven categories was less than 10 percent, the SMEs' judgments are assumed to have been reasonably consistent and coherent.

88

Table 36: Results of the AHP Group Consensus for the xDOT Categories

xDOT Categories
Planning Execution Traffic Management ROW and Utilities Pre-Construction Information Management Contractual All, Average

AHP Group Consensus

Indicator

Level

76.8%

High

70.7%

Moderate

67.6%

Moderate

66.9%

Moderate

62.3%

Low

54.5%

Low

49.9%

Very Low

64.1%

Moderate

CR
0.50% 0.90% 0.50% 0.80% 0.20% 0.12% 0.50% 0.50%

Figure 18 shows the AHP results for the xDOT and CII categories. The most important xDOT categories are: 1) Execution (21.9 percent), 2) Contractual (21.2 percent), and 3) Traffic Mangement (15.9 percent). On the other hand, the top three CII categories are 1) Planning (22.2 percent), 2) Execution (19.4 percent), and 3) Organization (17.1 percent).

Execution

21.9%

Contractual

21.2%

Traffic Management

15.9%

ROW & Utilities

11.9%

Planning

9.7%

Info. Management

9.7%

Pre-Construction

9.6%

xDOT Categories

Planning

22.2%

Execution

19.4%

Organizational

17.1%

Cultural

16.6%

Delivery

15.8%

Contract

8.9%

CII Categories

Figure 18: Consolidated Global Priorities of the xDOT (Left) and CII (Right) Best Practices Figure 18 lists the final weights for the xDOT categories, and Figure 19 provides the organizational structure of the xDOT best practices. To incorporate the practices identified through the VDOT and GDOT research, the research team developed the xDOT Playbook and Flash Track Readiness Toolkit (See Appendices III and IV).

89

Flash Track Best Practices for xDOT

ROW & Utilities (11.9%)

Pre Construction
(9.6%)

Contractual (21.2%)

Planning (9.7%)

Information Management
(9.7%)

48. Having Early Engagement of Utility Owners (19.0%)
49. Having Early Utility and ROW (20.6%)
50. Having Dedicated Utility Manager Consultants for xDOT and the DesignerConstructor Team (12.8%)
51. Having Sub-surface Utility Engineering (14.7%)
52. Overlapping Environmental and ROW Acquisition (17.1%)
53. Starting ROW Acquisition during Conceptual Design (20% - 50% Design) (15.8%)

54. Conducting Environmental Permitting and Scope Development in Parallel (32.9%)
55. Gathering Accurate Geotechnical (Sub-surface) Data to Reduce Risk (22.1%)
56. Establishing Programmatic Agreements to Streamline the Process for Handling Routine Environmental Requirements (34.2%)
57. Using Preconstruction Analysis Software to Evaluate and Select Alternate Project Scenarios (10.8%)

58. Having a Responsible In-charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator (22.2%)
59. Including ROW, Utility Relocation, and Environmental Mitigation in DesignBuild Contract (18.0%)
60. Using Incentives to Encourage Earlier Project Completion (21.6%)
61. Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items as Means of Risk Sharing (17.8%)
62. Using Existing Open-ended Contracts to Procure Time-critical Elements (20.4%)

63. Having a 30-day State-owned Float Activity as a Predecessor to the Scheduled Completion Date, to Absorb Critical Delays Occasioned by the State (10.0%)
64. Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design (10.0%)
65. Phasing Environmental Permits to Match Phased Construction (28.3%)
66. Using Software to Assist with Scheduling of PCC Pavement, Given the Design, Construction, and Environmental Factors (10.7%)
67. Considering Both Inter-phase and Intraphase Concurrency for Design and Construction Packages (26.3%)
68. Establishing the Bridge Fabrication Facility near the Project Location (14.7%)

69. Collecting Lessons Learned from Similar Projects (17.6%)
70. Developing a Planned Issue Resolution Process (41.9%)
71. Utilizing an Integrated Document Management System for Tracking RFIs, QA/QC, Submittals, and Other Timesensitive Documents (40.5%)

Execution (21.9%)

Traffic Management
(15.9%)

72. Pre-fabricating Project Elements That Are on the Critical Path (15.7%)
73. Considering Innovative Construction Materials That Accelerate Construction (13.8%)
74. Implementing Construction-driven Designs (31.6%)
75. Making Timely Decisions through the Use of Workshops (19.0%)
76. Establishing a Project Command Center (14.9%)
77. Establishing a Shuttle Bus Service for Construction Workers, Taking Them from a Common Parking Lot to the Jobsite (5.1%)

78. Ensuring Efficient Coordination of Construction with Management of Traffic Issues (16.3%)
79. Utilizing a Lane Closure Time Bank (7.5%)
80. Deploying Continual Public Outreach, Media Campaigns, and Dedicated Communications Personnel (19.3%)
81. Ensuring Workers/Public Health and Safety (36.2%)
82. Performing Exhaustive Lane Closure Planning (10.0%)
83. Implementing Smarter Work Zones to Dynamically Manage Traffic and Reduce Work Zone Impacts (10.7%)

Figure 19: Organizational Structure for xDOT Best Practices

Figures 20 and 21 show the consolidated global priorities for the xDOT best practices and CII best practices, respectively. The global priority for each practice was determined by multiplying its weight with the weight of the corresponding category. Based on these results, the most important xDOT best practices are as follows: 1) Implementing Construction-driven Design (6.9 percent); 2) Ensuring Worker/Public Health and Safety (5.8 percent); and 3) Having a Responsible In-charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator (4.7 percent). In the case of CII, the top three best practices are the following: 1) Selecting Appropriate Construction Methods (4.6 percent); 2) Procuring Long Lead Time Items (4.5 percent); and 3) Ensuring Sufficient Critical Path Resources (3.9 percent). The identification of each best practice priority or importance in the execution of a Flash Track delivery helps owners determine which practices should be included as a requirement in the request for qualifications (RFQ) and in the request for proposals (RFP) and which other practices would be preferred to have it. In fact, some of the positives encountered in VDOT and GDOT projects, which were described by their SMEs, are now vetted Flash Track best practices. Examples of these are as follows:
The inclusion of additional allowances for a lane closure and for utilities The inclusion of the ROW consideration in the D-B contract Design completed before construction The inclusion of utilities in the scope of the D-B contract Monthly schedule updates from the D-B team Tailor-made procurement specific to the project Face-to-face monthly meetings to discuss utility designs and construction
91

Extra efforts made to hand out the flyers, better community outreach, and web pages from the city
The inclusion of the A+B component for procurement Use of software as a document management system to track submittals Use of video simulations to explain the project to the public
92

Impl Constr Driven Design P74 Worker/Pub Health & Saf P81 Engr/DB Integrator P58 Incent Early Completion P60 Open-ended Contracts P62 WS for Decision Making P75 Devep Issue Resol Process P70
Doc Mang System for RFIs P71 Bid Allow for Risk Sharing P61 ROW, Util, Env in DB Contr P59 Pre-Fab elem Critical Path P72
Project Command Center P76 Agreements for Env requir P56 Env & Scope Dev in Parallel P54 Continuous Public Outreach P80 Innovative Constr Materials P73 Match Env Permt w/ Constr P65 Coord Constr w/ Mang Traffic P78 Concurrent Inter/Intra Phase P67
Early Util & ROW Coord P49 Early Engag of Utility P48 Accurate Geotech Inf P55
Overlap Env & ROW Acq P52 ROW Acq in Design P53
Sub-Surface Utility Engr P51 Smart Work Zones P83
Collect Lessons Learned P69 Lane Closure Planning P82
Utility Mang Consultant P50 Fab Facility near Proj Locat P68
Lane Closure Time Bank P79 Shuttle Bus Service P77
Software for PCC Pav Sched P66 3D/4D Modelling in Design P64
30 Day-State owned Float P63 Pre-Const Software P57

4.7% 4.6% 4.3% 4.2% 4.1% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

5.8%

6.9%

Figure 20: Consolidated Global Priorities for the xDOT Best Practices

93

Approp Construction Methods P44 Procure Long Lead Time Items P36 Sufficient Critical Path Resources P38
Recognize Flash Track Risks P40 Dedicating Full Time Personnel P43
Open Communication P30 Delegate Authority P20
Construction Speed in Design P39 Simplify Approval Process P42 Coordination Planning P34 Strong Leadership P12 Integrated Team P18 Empower the Project Team P21 Construction Procurement P10 A "No Blame" Culture P29 Minimize hand-offs P45 Co-location P41 Front End Planning P35 Timley Selection & Awards P11 Engage Contractors Early P15 Co-op- & Collaborative P31 Clear Requirements P1 Flexible Project Teams P28 Suppliers & Contractors P16 Team Members Selection P9 Funding Critical Efforts P7 Executive Alignment P33 Innovative Constr Methods P46 Committed Owner P27 Accept a New Paradigm P26 Engage O&M Early P17 A "Can Do" Attitude P23 Monitor Corrective Actions P37 Knowledgeable Owner P22 Empowered Owner's RepresP24 Frequent Meetings P47 Open Minded Team P32 Align Particip w/ Contract P3 Multi-skilled Personnel P25 Tailored Contract Strategies P4 Team Building P19
Innovative Procurement Pract P13 Change Mang Procedures P5 3D Modeling P14 Collective Efforts P8 Perf-Based Specifications P2
Effective Claims Resol Process P6

4.6% 4.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.4%

Figure 21: Consolidated Global Priorities for the CII Best Practices

94

SECTION 10 CONCLUSION
xDOT IMPLEMENTATION: COURTLAND STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
GDOT awarded the contract for the replacement of the Courtland Street Bridge in Atlanta as part of the Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) initiative, and in support of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) efforts to update local routes. The project used a Design-Build approach for the quick development needed to limit traffic disruptions in the area. The principal investigators of this research team recommended that GDOT incorporate the following best practices for Flash Tracking into the Courtland Street Bridge request for proposals and instructions to proposers (RFP-ITP). They identified the placeholder sections for these insertions:
B.2.1.4 Proposer shall include references from prior clients, attesting to the team's open communication, transparency, and cooperative and collaborative culture.
C.2. c) Proposer shall discuss and demonstrate knowledge of 4D modeling or other schedule/staging/conflict simulation or modeling software.
C.4.1 f) Proposer shall demonstrate its plans to engage key suppliers and key specialty subcontractors early on during the design phase as providers of time-saving innovations.
95

g) Proposer shall demonstrate its plans to establish and co-locate a fully integrated project team, including design, construction, key specialty contractors and suppliers, traffic management personnel, utility providers, and commissioning and operations personnel.
h) Proposer shall demonstrate its plans to engage a dedicated traffic manager and utility management personnel early on in the design process.
i) Proposer shall designate a Responsible-in-Charge Engineer/Design-Build Integrator.
C.4.2 d) Proposer shall demonstrate its plans to adopt construction-driven design and construction-driven procurement strategies. e) Proposer shall demonstrate its plans to ensure worker/public health and safety. f) Proposer shall develop a preliminary risk register.
Project Overview Located in downtown Atlanta, the Courtland Street Bridge had deteriorated and was in need of replacement. The replacement bridge was designed to have the same length (~1,600 feet) and the same number of lanes as the current bridge (i.e., one lane on each direction for a total two lanes). The bridge had difficult right-of-way conditions, which were to remain the same (60 ft.), including access to ramps. The bridge also passed over a railway section and a number of transportation hubs for the city of Atlanta, and was reconfigured to allow higher clearance for future transportation facilities.
96

The winning bid for this project was $21 million. The project started in January 2018 and was completed and operational in October 2018. Project Team The Design-Build team GDOT chose for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement project was C.W. Mathews Contracting Company and Michael Baker International. Challenges The following were the numerous challenges of the project:
Six-month-long detour for the duration of the bridge replacement Limited right-of-way and limited space for the construction crew Management of vehicular and pedestrian traffic was critical
97

Project Map
Figure 22: Courtland Street Bridge Replacement Project Map xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results Project team members, or their representatives, were asked to assess the project's Flash Track readiness based on the CII and xDOT modules of the Flash Track Readiness Toolkit. Figures 23 and 24 show the overall readiness scores obtained for the CII (9.7) best practices and the xDOT best practices (7.8), respectively. The screenshot in Figure 23 shows that,
98

for the CII-developed categories, the project scored highest in Delivery and Planning readiness (with scores of 10 out of 10), followed by Cultural readiness (with a score of 9.8). The screenshot in Figure 24 shows that, for the xDOT categories, the project scored highest in ROW & Utilities readiness (with a score of 10), followed by readiness in Preconstruction (with a score of 9.9). Figures 25 and 26 show the project's readiness scores on both assessments after completion. Figure 25 shows the highest scoring CII categories were Contractual (9.9) and Planning (9.8). Figure 26 shows that Planning and Traffic Management had the highest scores (both 10 out of 10).
Figure 23: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement at Outset
99

Figure 24: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement Project at Outset
Figure 25: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement at Completion 100

Figure 26: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement at Completion
101

Assessment of Readiness For Flash Tracking

The meeting for this project took place on January 12, 2018 to introduce the Flash Track research to the Design-Build team. In this session, project team members were asked to use both the CII and xDOT Flash Track Best Practices modules to assess their readiness to execute the Courtland Street Bridge project on a Flash Track basis. Meeting Attendees Table 37 below shows all the attendees of the Courtland Street Bridge Replacement meeting.

Table 37: Courtland Street Bridge Replacement Meeting Attendees

Name

Company

Richard O'Hara

GDOT -OID

Albert Bowman

Michael Baker International

Darryl D. VanMeter

GDOT-OID

Andrew Hoenig

GDOT-OID

Lisa Woods

HNTB

Mike Nadolski

C.W. Matthews Contracting Company

WORKFLOW PROCESS MODEL FOR FLASH TRACK PROJECTS

In an article in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, the research team formalized a reengineered workflow process for successful Flash Tracking, given the acronym cPEpC to represent early project collaboration before procurement, engineering, and construction begins. (See Figure 27.) More specifically, the lower case "c" stands for construction-driven design and denotes the committed and collaborative engagement of downstream stakeholders at project outset; the capital "P" stands for procurement of strategic and long lead items; the capital "E" stands

102

for engineering; the lower case "p" stands for the procurement of the remaining items for the project; and the capital "C" stands for construction.
Figure 27: Workflow Process for Flash Track Projects Workflow Process for Flash Track Projects [22]: de la Garza, J. M., & Pishdad-Bozorgi, P. (2018). "Workflow Process Model for Flash Track Projects." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(6): 06018001-1 thru 06018001-6. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001501 Here is the presentation the authors made to GDOT's Office of Innovative Delivery to introduce cPEpC delivery approach.
103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

SECTION 11 - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Speed and quality of construction have always been a driving factor in the construction industry. In today's era of technically complex projects and increased regulatory environments, a variety of concepts and delivery methods have been defined all striving to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for faster project delivery. In spite of this, much of the construction industry continues to suffer from excessive costs and delayed completions due to the construction industry's fragmentation, excessive litigation, short-termism, lack of trust, and lack of collaboration within the client/design/construction team. As Owners, like GDOT, are increasingly demanding faster project delivery from concept to completion, a higher level of fast tracking is needed offering greater predictability and even faster project deliveries. Flash Track projects are faced with a high degree of chaos given the heightened degree of concurrency between scope definition, engineering, procurement, and construction. Design-Build coupled with Flash Tracking practices offers a viable opportunity to increase the reliability of time-driven projects. Future research is needed to develop Flash Tracking implementation guidelines that would complement the existing Design-Build Manual. These standardized implementation guidelines can be captured in an appendix to the Design-Build Manual.
111

REFERENCES
1. Dey, P. K., Ogunlana, S. O., and Tabucanon, M. T. "Hierarchial approach to project planning: The case of a petroleum pipeline construction," Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 20 (9): 683-698, 1996.
2. Feniosky, P. M., and Park, M. "Dynamic Planning for Fast-Tracking Building Construction Projects," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 127(6): pp. 445-456, 2001.
3. Austin, R. B., Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., and De La Garza, J. M. "Identifying and Prioritizing Best Practices to Achieve Flash Track Projects," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 142 (2), 040150771-12, 2016.
4. Boyd, D., and Chinyio, E. Understanding the Construction Client, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.
5. Elvin, G. "Proven Practices in Design-Build and Fast-Track," in Architectural Engineering Conference (AEI) 2003, 2003.
6. Khoramshahi, F., Ruwanpura, J. Y., and Dehghan, R. "A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Fast-Tracking Techniques on Project Performance," in Construction Research Congress 2010, 2010.
7. USA Today, One day later, we still don't know what caused Atlanta's I-85 bridge fire, March 2017.
8. Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., Austin, R., and de la Garza, J. M. "Flash Track Practices Distilled via Structured Interviews from EPC Projects," Construction Research Congress 2016, pp. 168-178, 2016.
9. Bruinsma, J. E., Peshkin, D. G., Wade, M. J., and Delatte, N. "Accelerated Practices
112

for Construction of Airfield Concrete Pavement: Lessons Learned from Planning Phase," Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2007, pp. 97-103, 2007.
10. Saaty, T. L. "How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process." European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1): 9-26, 1990.
11. Georgia Department of Transportation. Major Transportation Improvement Set for Dade County, 2015.
12. HNTB Corporation. GDOT PI #0011682 - SR 299 Bridge Replacement over I-24, 2013. 13. Lee, E. B., and Choi, K. "Part 1: Pavement Rehabilitation: Fast-Track Construction for
Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation: California Urban Highway Network." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1949), 3-10, 2006
14. Federal Highway Administration, Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems (PBES) Definitions. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/abc/prefab_def.cfm [accessed on July 16th, 2018]
15. Miller, S. K., and Ortega, R. 2012. "Managing Fast Track Design and Construction Projects - How to Stay on Schedule and Within Budget." Pipelines 2006. Pipeline Division Specialty Conference, 2006.
16. Blakemore, F., and Desai, B. "Fast-Track Bridge Redecking: Route 64 over Pomme de Terre Lake." Structures Congress 2006: Structural Engineering and Public Safety, pp. 1-7, 2006.
17. McCure, M. S. "Fast-Track Design-Build of 93 km (58 mi) Water Transmission
113

Pipeline in West Texas." Pipelines 2014, 2014. 18. Attanayake, U., Abudayyeh, O., Cooper, J., Mohammed, A. W., and Aktan, H. "First
full-depth deck-panel accelerated bridge construction project in Michigan: Constructability challenges and lessons learned." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 28(1): 128-135, 2014. 19. Verrastro, R., Corsa, R., Rose, B., and Powell, R. "Accelerated Bridge Construction Case Study: Design Build Replacement of Rock Ridge Road Bridge." 2014 Design Training Expo. 2014 Design Training Expo, 2014. 20. Moran, J. "The Fast 14 Project." Public Roads Magazine, 2012. 21. Brown, B. B. "DELPHI PROCESS: A Methodology Used for the Elicitation of Opinion of Experts." The RAND Corporation. ASTME Vectors, 1968. 22. de la Garza, J. M., & Pishdad-Bozorgi, P. (2018). "Workflow Process Model for Flash Track Projects," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(6): 06018001-1 thru 06018001-6.https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001501
114

APPENDIX I

VALIDATION RUBRIC FOR FLASH TRACK PRACTICES

According to your experience, provide your assessment for each of the following practices with respect to the following statement:

The concept or practice is essential for the success of a GDOT Flash Track project.

Using existing open-ended contracts to procure time-critical elements.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

O

O

Providing an extended mobilization period.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

Agree

Strongly Agree

O

O

Considering ongoing operations when planning and scheduling a brownfield

construction project.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

O

O

Performing exhaustive lane closure planning.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

Agree

Strongly Agree

O

O

Using pre-construction analysis software to evaluate and select alternative project scenarios.
115

ESSENTIAL

Strongly Disagree
O

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

O

O

Moderately Agree
O

Agree

Strongly Agree

O

O

Using software to assist with scheduling of PCC pavements, given the design,

construction, and environmental factors.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

O

O

Pre-fabricating project elements that are on the critical path.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

Agree

Strongly Agree

O

O

Considering both inter-phase and intra-phase concurrency for design and

construction packages.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

O

O

Considering innovative construction materials that accelerate construction.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

O

O

Having sub-surface utility engineering.

ESSENTIAL

Strongly Disagree
O

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

O

O

Moderately Agree
O

Agree

Strongly Agree

O

O

116

Building mock-ups of pre-fabricated components to address potential

constructability challenges prior to its shipping.

ESSENTIAL

Strongly Disagree
O

Moderately Disagree Disagree

O

O

Moderately Agree
O

Strongly

Agree

Agree

O

O

Implementing construction-driven designs.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

Agree

Strongly Agree

O

O

Collecting lessons learned from similar projects.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Moderately Agree

ESSENTIAL

O

O

O

O

Agree

Strongly Agree

O

O

Based on your experience, we would welcome any thoughts on any other practices that are absolutely essential for the success of GDOT Flash Track projects.

117

APPENDIX II

CII FLASH TRACK BEST PRACTICES

Contract Considerations Delivery Considerations Organizational Considerations Cultural Considerations Planning Considerations Execution Considerations

Categories

Weight 8.9% 15.8% 17.1% 16.6% 22.2% 19.4%

Contract Considerations
1 Setting Clear, Specific Scoping Requirements 2 Establishing Performance-based Specifications 3 Aligning Project Participants' Interests through Contract 4 Establishing Contract Strategies Specifically Tailored to the Project
Condition 5 Establishing Clear Change Management Procedures 6 Establishing an Effective Claims Resolution Process 7 Funding Early Critical Efforts 8 Reducing Risks Through Collective Efforts of All Stakeholders

Weight 23.0% 8.2% 13.5%
11.4%
9.5% 4.9% 20.6% 8.9%

Delivery Considerations
9 Selecting Team Members and Staff on the Basis of Their Fast Track Experience or Qualifications
10 Focusing Procurement Decisions on Construction Priorities 11 Making Timely Selection and Awarding Contracts to Subcontractors 12 Staffing with Personnel with Strong Leadership Capabilities 13 Employing Innovative Procurement Practices 14 Highly Integrated 3-D Modeling, with All Major Users Updating a
Common Database 15 Involving Contractors, Traders, and Vendors in the Design Phase 16 Seeking Out Suppliers and Specialty Contractors As a Source for Time-
saving Innovations

Weight
11.8% 17.2% 15.4% 18.1% 5.9% 5.3% 14.5% 11.8%

118

Organizational Considerations
17 Engaging Operations and Maintenance Personnel in the Development and Design Processes
18 Establishing a Fully Integrated Project Team, Including Design, Construction, Specialty Contractors, Commissioning, and Operations Personnel
19 Using Team Building and Partnering Practices
20 Delegating Authority to the Project Level (Maximize Decision-making Authority to the Project Level)
21 Empowering the Project Team (Each Organization Led by an Empowered Leader)
22 Having an Owner With Sufficient Depth of Resources and Strength of Organization
23 Selecting Personnel with a Can-Do Attitude and Willingness to Tackle Challenging Tasks
24 Having an Engaged and Empowered Owner's Engineer (Owner's Representative)
25 Staffing with Multi-skilled Personnel

Weight 9.1%
16.7% 5.8% 19.9% 16.2% 8.6% 9% 8.3% 6.4%

Cultural Considerations
26 Accepting a Non-Traditional Paradigm Or Mindset 27 Having an Active, Involved, and Fully Committed Owner 28 Establishing Flexible Project Teams That Avoid Rigid Hierarchy 29 Maintaining a No-Blame Culture and Mutually Supportive Environment 30 Having Open Communication and Transparency 31 Staffing with Cooperative And Collaborative Personnel 32 Having an Open-Minded Team 33 Creating Executive Alignment Among the Contracted Parties

Weight
9.4% 10.5% 11.5% 15.9% 20.9% 13.6% 7.3% 10.9%

Planning Considerations
34 Emphasizing Coordination Planning During the Design Processes 35 Performing Exhaustive Front-End Planning 36 Identifying and Procuring Long Lead Items 37 Monitoring and Driving Corrective Actions Through The Project
Controls Process 38 Providing Enough Resources to Critical Path Items 39 Considering Speed of Fabrication and Construction during the Selection

Weight 13.3% 11.1% 20.1%
6.8%
17.4% 14.1%

119

of Design Alternatives 40 Recognizing and Managing the Additional Flash Track Risks

17.2%

Execution Considerations
41 Co-Location of Project Teams (Owner, Designer, Builder, and/or Key Vendors)
42 Simplifying Approval Procedures 43 Dedication of Full-Time Personnel to the Project 44 Selecting Appropriate Construction Methods 45 Minimizing Handoffs 46 Employing Innovative Construction Methods 47 Frequent and Effective Project Review Meetings

Weight
13.0%
15.7% 18.4% 23.9% 13.3% 9.2% 6.5%

120

APPENDIX III
xDOT PLAYBOOK
121

APPENDIX IV
xDOT TOOLKIT A toolkit was developed to assist stakeholders in determining how prepared they are to undertake a Flash Track project. The consolidated Flash Track readiness tool is a Microsoft Excel-based application that incorporates the 47 CII best practices and categories and the 36 xDOT best practices and categories. Figure 28 below shows the layout of the main sections of the xDOT Flash Track readiness tool: Home Page, Category Page, Results Page, and Report Page. In the Home Page, either the user can select to begin evaluating their project readiness level with the CII or xDOT Flash Track practices (Figure 28.a). Each assessment is completely independent. The seven xDOT categories are presented in a different worksheet (Figure 28.b). The evaluation of each practice consists of assigning a readiness score based on the team's assessment of the issue concerning the practice. When the evaluation for each of the practices is completed, the final readiness score is shown in the Results tab of the workbook (Figure 28.c). This score is shown as an overall project score as well as by category. Finally, the toolkit displays improvement and implementation measures for the best practices with scores equal to or lower than seven in the Report page (Figure 28.d).
122

a. xDOT Home Page

b. xDOT Category Page

c. xDOT Results Page

Figure 28: xDOT Toolkit Layout

d. xDOT Report Page