GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 19-10
FINAL REPORT
FLASH TRACKING IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES COMPLEMENTING THE EXISTING DESIGN-BUILD MANUAL
OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
600 WEST PEACHTREE STREET NW | ATLANTA, GA 30308

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. FHWA-GA-21-1910

2. Government Accession No. N/A

4. Title and Subtitle Flash Tracking Implementation Guidelines Complementing Existing DesignBuild Manual

3. Recipient's Catalog No. N/A
5. Report Date August 2021
6. Performing Organization Code N/A

7. Author(s) Pardis Pishdad-Bozorgi, PhD, Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology Jesus M. de la Garza, PhD, Professor and Chair, Clemson University
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Georgia Institute of Technology School of Building Construction 280 Ferst Dr., Atlanta, GA 30332

8. Performing Organization Report No. 19-10
10. Work Unit No. N/A
11. Contract or Grant No. PI#0016846

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report (August 2019- August 2021)
14. Sponsoring Agency Code N/A

15. Supplementary Notes Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract The overarching objective of this research is to develop Flash Tracking implementation guidelines that would complement the existing Design-Build Manual. These standardized implementation guidelines are captured in an appendix to the DesignBuild Manual.

The research methodology comprised three phases. In the first phase, the research team studied and analyzed the effectiveness of flash track best practices implementation on three GDOT projects--namely, improvements to the I-16/I-95 interchange, the I-85 Widening, and SR 400 EL. In the second phase, the team reviewed and analyzed the GDOT DesignBuild Manual to identify its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (i.e., a SWOT analysis) in terms of its treatment of flash track best practices. This involved cross-referencing the D-B manual against the 83 flash track best practices, to determine the presence or absence of each flash track best practice in the manual. In the third phase, an appendix to the D-B manual was developed to serve as an official source on implementing flash track best practices on D-B projects. Furthermore, modified RFQ and RFP templates were developed to incorporate flash track practices on projects and specific recommendations were made for the RFQ and RFP for the Houlihan Bridge P.I. No. 0013741/0013742 SR 25 at Savannah & Middle River Bridges.

17. Key Words Flash Track, Accelerated Project Delivery, Project Delivery, Accelerated Construction, Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), Design-Build
19. Security Classification (of this report) Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

18. Distribution Statement No restrictions.

20. Security Classification (of this page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages
106

22. Price Free

Reproduction of completed page authorized

i

GDOT Research Project No. RP 19-10 Final Report
FLASH TRACKING IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES COMPLEMENTING THE EXISTING DESIGN-BUILD MANUAL
By Pardis Pishdad-Bozorgi, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Georgia Institute of Technology
Jesus M. de la Garza, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator, Clemson 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
August 2021 The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the accuracy of the data and the facts presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii

Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

inches

25.4

millimeters

feet

0.305

meters

yards

0.914

meters

miles

1.61

kilometers

AREA

square inches

645.2

square millimeters

square feet

0.093

square meters

square yard

0.836

square meters

acres

0.405

hectares

square miles

2.59

square kilometers

VOLUME

fluid ounces

29.57

milliliters

gallons

3.785

liters

cubic feet

0.028

cubic meters

cubic yards

0.765

cubic meters

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

ounces

28.35

grams

pounds

0.454

kilograms

short tons (2000 lb)

0.907

megagrams (or "metric ton")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Fahrenheit

5 (F-32)/9

Celsius

or (F-32)/1.8

ILLUMINATION

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

10.76 3.426

lux candela/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

poundforce

4.45

newtons

poundforce per square inch

6.89

kilopascals

Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa

Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

millimeters

0.039

inches

meters

3.28

feet

meters

1.09

yards

kilometers

0.621

miles

AREA

square millimeters

0.0016

square inches

square meters

10.764

square feet

square meters

1.195

square yards

hectares

2.47

acres

square kilometers

0.386

square miles

VOLUME

milliliters

0.034

fluid ounces

liters

0.264

gallons

cubic meters

35.314

cubic feet

cubic meters

1.307

cubic yards

MASS

grams

0.035

ounces

kilograms

2.202

pounds

megagrams (or "metric ton")

1.103

short tons (2000 lb)

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Celsius

1.8C+32

Fahrenheit

ILLUMINATION

lux candela/m2

0.0929 0.2919

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

newtons

0.225

poundforce

kilopascals

0.145

poundforce per square inch

Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003)

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 5
ASSESSING FLASH TRACK READINESS FOR SELECTED GDOT PROJECTS .................. 7
I-85 Widening Project............................................................................................................................... 7 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 7 Project Team ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Timeline.................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Map ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Assessment of Readiness for Flash Tracking........................................................................................ 9 Meeting Attendees .............................................................................................................................. 10 Flash Track Readiness Tool Results For I-85 Widening Project ........................................................ 10 I-85 Widening Project Positives and Challenges ................................................................................ 12
SR 400 EL Project .................................................................................................................................. 15 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................ 15 Project Team ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Project Timeline.................................................................................................................................. 17 Project Map ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Assessment of Readiness for Flash Tracking...................................................................................... 18 Meeting Attendees .............................................................................................................................. 18 Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for Sr 400 Express Lanes Project.............................................. 19 SR 400 Express Lanes Project Positives and Challenges ................................................................... 21
I-16 & I-95 Project.................................................................................................................................. 26 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................ 26 Project Team ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Project Timeline.................................................................................................................................. 27 Project Map ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Assessment of Readiness for Flash Tracking...................................................................................... 28 Meeting Attendees .............................................................................................................................. 28 Flash Track Readiness Tool Results For I-16 & I-95 Project ............................................................. 28 I-16 AND I-95 Project Positives and Challenges ............................................................................... 31
PRESENCE OF FLASH TRACK BEST PRACTICES IN THE GDOT D-B MANUAL .......... 37
iv

SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE GDOT D-B MANUAL FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FLASH TRACKING .................................................................................................................................. 53 GDOT DESIGN-BUILD MANUAL APPENDIX FOR FLASH TRACK PROJECTS.............. 69 ADDENDUM TO RFQ FOR SR 25 AT SAVANNAH & MIDDLE RIVER BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT........................................................................................................ 75 ADDENDUM TO RFP FOR SR 25 AT SAVANNAH & MIDDLE RIVER BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT........................................................................................................ 77 REVISED TEMPLATE FOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ......................................... 79 REVISED TEMPLATE FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.................................................... 89 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 97 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 98
v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: I-85 Widening Project Timeline.....................................................................................................................8 Figure 2: I-85 Project Map ............................................................................................................................................9 Figure 3: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the I-85 Widening Project .................................................11 Figure 4: SR 400 Project Timeline ..............................................................................................................................17 Figure 5: SR 400 Project Map .....................................................................................................................................18 Figure 6: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the SR 400 Express Lanes Project..........................................19 Figure 7: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for SR 400 Express Lanes Project...........................................20 Figure 8: I-16 and I-95 Interchange Reconstruction Project Timeline ........................................................................27 Figure 9: I-16 & I-95 Project Map...............................................................................................................................27 Figure 10: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for I-16 & I-95 ...........................................................................29 Figure 11: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for I-16 & I-95 ......................................................................30 Figure 12: Presence of CII Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual by Category ......................................37 Figure 13: Presence of xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual by Category .................................38 Figure 14: CII Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual.....................39 Figure 15: CII Delivery Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual .........................40 Figure 16: CII Organizational Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ...............41 Figure 17: CII Cultural Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ..........................42 Figure 18: CII Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual .........................43 Figure 19: CII Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual .......................44 Figure 20: xDOT ROW & Utilities Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual .......45 Figure 21: xDOT Pre-Construction Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual .......46 Figure 22: xDOT Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual................47 Figure 23: xDOT Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ....................48 Figure 24: xDOT Information Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ......................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 25: xDOT Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ..................50 Figure 26: xDOT Traffic Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual..51
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: ROW and Utilities Readiness for I-85...........................................................................................................12 Table 2: Pre-Construction Readiness for I-85 .............................................................................................................12 Table 3: Contractual Readiness for I-85 ......................................................................................................................13 Table 4: Planning Readiness for I-85 ..........................................................................................................................13 Table 5: Information Management Readiness for I-85................................................................................................14 Table 6: Traffic Management Readiness for I-85........................................................................................................14 Table 7: Execution Readiness for I-85 ........................................................................................................................14 Table 8: Contractual Readiness for SR 400 .................................................................................................................21 Table 9: Execution Readiness for SR 400 ...................................................................................................................22 Table 10: Planning Readiness for SR 400 ...................................................................................................................22 Table 11: Information Management Readiness for SR 400.........................................................................................23 Table 12: Traffic Management Readiness for SR 400.................................................................................................23 Table 13: Delivery Readiness for SR 400 ...................................................................................................................24 Table 14: Organizational Readiness for SR 400..........................................................................................................25 Table 15: Cultural Readiness for SR 400 ....................................................................................................................25 Table 16: Contractual Readiness for I-65 and I-95......................................................................................................31 Table 17: Delivery Readiness for I-65 and I-95 ..........................................................................................................32 Table 18: Execution Readiness for I-65 and I-95 ........................................................................................................32 Table 19: Execution Readiness for I-65 and I-95 ........................................................................................................33 Table 20: Pre-Construction Readiness for I-65 and I-95 .............................................................................................33 Table 21: Planning Readiness for I-65 and I-95 ..........................................................................................................34 Table 22: Information Management Readiness for I-65 and I-95................................................................................34 Table 23: Information Management Readiness for I-65 and I-95...............................................................................35 Table 24: CII Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ......................39 Table 25: CII Delivery Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual...........................40 Table 26: CII Organizational Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual.................41 Table 27: CII Cultural Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ...........................42
vii

Table 28: CII Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ..........................43 Table 29: CII Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ........................44 Table 30: xDOT ROW & Utilities Category- Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ..........45 Table 31: xDOT Pre-Construction Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ........46 Table 32: xDOT Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual .................47 Table 33: xDOT Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual .....................48 Table 34: xDOT Information Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices ................................49 Table 35: xDOT Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual ...................50 Table 36: xDOT Traffic Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual...51 Table 37: SWOT Analysis of GDOT D-B Manual for Flash Tracking--Focusing on Strengths ...............................53 Table 38: SWOT Analysis of GDOT D-B Manual for Flash Tracking--Focusing on Weaknesses ...........................59 Table 39: SWOT Analysis of GDOT D-B Manual for Flash Tracking--Focusing on Opportunities.........................61
viii

INTRODUCTION
Speed and quality have always been the two biggest drivers of performance improvement in the construction industry. With ever more technically complex projects and increasingly stringent regulatory environments, the challenge of faster project delivery has inspired a number of innovative concepts and delivery methods. In spite of these new approaches, the stubbornly fragmented, short-sighted, highly siloed, adversarial, and litigious nature of the construction industry causes it to resist innovation and continue to suffer from excessive costs and delayed completions.
Owners like the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) are increasingly demanding faster project delivery, from concept to completion. To achieve this higher performance, the agency needs a higher level of fast tracking (a.k.a. flash tracking), one that offers greater predictability and significantly faster project delivery. Compared to fast tracking, the flash track delivery method entails a heightened degree of concurrency between engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) activities. This compression of project processes significantly shortens the project schedule.
Flash track projects are by nature exposed to higher levels of risk, particularly the risk that comes from volatility. Thus, they rely on strategies for resource management and stakeholder alignment to achieve the faster project development and execution desired. This need for expedited project delivery is generally driven by regulatory pressures, demands for emergency rebuilds, economic needs, and/or windows of opportunity.
1

When owners couple flash tracking practices with the Design-Build (DB) project delivery method, they significantly increase their ability to reliably deliver time-driven projects. However, executing such a greatly accelerated project requires serious consideration of essential flash track best practices, which are not typically considered on traditional fast-tracked D-B projects. Atlanta's Courtland Bridge Replacement project is a clear example of the D-B delivery method benefitting from thoughtful flash track implementation, beginning in the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase.
The current GDOT Design-Build Manual (modified in October 2016) lacks explicit guidelines for converting a fast track project into a flash track project, in spite of the success of the Courtland bridge project. To replicate this success, the agency should standardize the flash track delivery practices used on the project and set them out as generalized flash track delivery guidelines in an appendix to the manual.
The principal investigators of this study, Dr. Pishdad-Bozorgi and Dr. de la Garza, have completed seven years of research on flash tracking, sponsored by GDOT, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the Construction Industry Institute (CII). This continuous line of inquiry has led to the identification, assessment, and validation of the practices most essential for the successful completion of flash-track transportation projects. From the totality of this research, these researchers vetted and weighted eighty-three best practices for flash tracking by means of the Delphi and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodologies. Subsequently, they created an integrated framework called the Flash Track Readiness
2

Assessment Toolkit (FTT), by combining their three independently developed frameworks (i.e., the sets of best practices developed for projects sponsored by GDOT, VDOT, and CII) into an integrated structure for all flash tracked transportation projects. Called xDOT, this framework can be used by organizations to determine their readiness to flash track a given project. Moreover, the toolkit was designed to guide a project team through the implementation measures needed to overcome barriers, proactively mitigate potential risks, and successfully execute flash tracking. The overarching objective of this research was to develop flash tracking implementation guidelines that will complement the existing GDOT Design-Build Manual. These standardized implementation guidelines will be captured in an appendix to be added to that manual.
3

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The research methodology comprised three phases. In the first phase, the research team studied and analyzed the effectiveness of flash track best practices implementation on three GDOT projects--namely, improvements to the I-16/I-95 interchange, the I-85 Widening, and SR 400 EL. In the second phase, the team reviewed and analyzed the GDOT Design-Build Manual to identify its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (i.e., a SWOT analysis) in terms of its treatment of flash track best practices. This involved cross-referencing the D-B manual against the 83 flash track best practices, to determine the presence or absence of each flash track best practice in the manual. In the third phase, an appendix to the D-B manual was developed to serve as an official source on implementing flash track best practices on D-B projects. Furthermore, modified RFQ and RFP templates were developed specifically to incorporate flash track practices on projects.
5

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ASSESSING FLASH TRACK READINESS FOR SELECTED GDOT PROJECTS
This section assesses the readiness of the project teams of three GDOT projects (I-85 Widening, SR 400EL, I-16, and I-95) to successfully implement Flash Track Best Practices. These assessments also document the opportunities and challenges faced by each team.
I-85 Widening Project
I-85 is the first project of the Major Mobility Investment (MMI) program started by the Georgia Department of Transportation. The main aim of the MMI program is to make a major investment in the state's transportation network by delivering projects that meet community needs and benefit drivers. The MMI program also wants to provide significant transportation improvements and efficiencies, enhance safety, and decrease travel time. The project particularly aims to provide relief to motorists in a heavily congested area by widening I-85 from two to three lanes in both directions, from I-985 to SR 53 in Gwinnett, Barrow, and Jackson counties. GDOT selected C.W. Matthews as the Design-Build team to deliver the project. The beginning of construction was set to commence in July 2018, and the project is scheduled for completion in mid-2020.
Project Overview
The project team was selected by means of the best value proposal procurement method. C.W. Matthews will use an accelerated process to design and construct the project. GDOT has a provision of incentive for early completion of milestones. The project aims at widening I-85
7

from two to three lanes in both directions, and involves the reduction of the grass median by means of a paved shoulder and median barrier. The I-85 widening includes replacing three superannuated overpass bridges (Spout Road bridge, Flowery Branch Road bridge, and Jesse Chronic Road bridge). After project completion, all signage, striping, and guardrails will be upgraded. The project will require no right-of-way acquisition. Additionally, no interchange work is proposed as part of the project. The replacement of the bridges will require temporary detours. GDOT has planned to mitigate negative public impacts as much as possible, through actions such as notifying affected community members in advance and using social media to update taxpayers on the project, among others. Project Team GDOT selected C.W. Matthews as the Design- Build team for the project. Project Timeline Figure 1 presents the projected timeline of the I-85 widening project.
Figure 1: I-85 Widening Project Timeline
8

Project Map
Figure 2 presents aerial images of the I-85 project area.
Figure 2: I-85 Project Map Assessment of Readiness for Flash Tracking A meeting to introduce 83 flash track best practices to the Design-Build team for this project was held on November 8, 2019. The purpose was to assess this stakeholder's readiness to execute the
9

project on a flash track basis. 10

Meeting Attendees
The meeting was attended by the principal investigator, the co-principal investigator, a representative from GDOT, consultants, and the Design-Build team members.
Flash Track Readiness Tool Results For I-85 Widening Project
Project team members or their representatives were asked to assess the project using both modules of the Flash Track Readiness Toolkit (Pishdad-Bozorgi and de la Garza 2018) (i.e., one based on the 47 CII-developed practices/categories and the other based on the 36 xDOTdeveloped practices/categories). Figure 3 presents a screenshot of the results of the readiness assessment with the xDOT module.
The readiness categories in this module 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. As the figure shows, the project's highest score (10) was in the ROW and Utilities Readiness category.
The three lowest scoring practices (each with a score of 5) were as follows: Establishing Programmatic Agreements to Streamline the Process for Handling (PreConstruction Readiness category) Developing a Planned Issue Resolution Process (Information Management category)
11

Implementing Smarter Work Zones to Dynamically Manage Traffic and Reduce Work Zone Impacts (Traffic Management category).
Figure 3: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the I-85 Widening Project 12

I-85 Widening Project Positives and Challenges

Presented below are the project team members' answers to the questions asked during the meeting about the positives and challenges they have encountered in the seven xDOT project readiness assessment areas.

ROW and Utilities Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to ROW and Utilities considerations?
Table 1: ROW and Utilities Readiness for I-85 ROW and Utilities Positives Utility owners were engaged early, and all conflicts were resolved before the bidding was
complete. A dedicated utility manager consultant was employed by both GDOT and the Design-Build team. GDOT conducted some investigation of sub-surface utility engineering early on; the information gathered was later updated and verified by the Design-Build team.
Pre-Construction Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Pre-Construction considerations?

Table 2: Pre-Construction Readiness for I-85

Pre-Construction Positives
Geotechnical data were collected by the Design-Build team before bidding for the job; and GDOT provided the existing report from historical data.
Streamlining of the process for handling routine environmental requirements was done during the prelet phase.

Pre-Construction Challenges
The reviews for environmental permitting and scope development suffered from a lack of clarity about who was doing what.
Because of the number of consultants involved, the review process hampered the process of programmatic streamlining.

13

Contractual Readiness

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

Table 3: Contractual Readiness for I-85

Contractual Positives
Best value selection was conducted to get the project, and liquidated damages were added into the contract.
Critical efforts like ROW, utility coordination, and relocation were funded early.

Contractual Challenges
The contract did not require having a responsible in-charge engineer and/or Design-Build integrator, and no one was responsible for bridging the different project entities.
The Design-Build team did not employ the practice of using open-ended contracts to procure long lead items.

Planning Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Planning considerations?
Table 4: Planning Readiness for I-85
Planning Positives The Design-Build team used AGTECH software for 3D Earth modeling and Terra Model
for GPS equipment. The design and construction packages were phased during the project. The ROW acquisition team was procured early, and high-risk utility owners were
engaged early. A core team of GDOT environmental staff was assigned to perform the expedited review,
since the environmental activities were on the critical path of the project.

Information Management Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Information Management considerations?

14

Table 5: Information Management Readiness for I-85

Information Management Positives
Both GDOT and the Design-Build team collect lessons learned from previous projects.
E-Builder was used for tracking Requests for information, quality assurance/quality control, submittals and other time sensitive documents.

Information Management Challenges
A planned issue resolution process was not contractually required, and an issue resolution process from a previous project was applied.

Traffic Management Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Traffic Management considerations? Table 6: Traffic Management Readiness for I-85

Traffic Management Positives
Dedicated personnel were available for public outreach and media campaigns.
A project safety plan, job safety plan, and corporate safety plan were developed for ensuring worker/public health and safety.

Traffic Management Challenges
GDOT did not adopt/implement the concept of a lane closure time bank.
Implementing smarter work zones to manage traffic was not contractually required and, thus, no smart work zone system was developed.

Execution Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Execution considerations?
Table 7: Execution Readiness for I-85
Execution Positives Project elements such as sound barrier panels, posts, and beams were pre-fabricated. Innovative construction materials were used to accelerate construction (e.g., faster curing
concrete on the bridge). A company vehicle was deployed to transport construction workers from a common
parking lot to the job site.
15

SR 400 EL Project
The SR 400 Express Lanes improvement is one of the major mobility investment program projects started by GDOT, aiming to increase mobility along the state's vital north-south transportation corridor. When completed, SR 400 El will be part of the larger Georgia Express Lanes network, a connected transportation system that will give motorists reliable trip times across the state. According to GDOT,
the Georgia Express Lanes are optional priced lanes that complement the general-purpose lanes along the interstates in some of the most congested corridors around metro Atlanta. These lanes provide a choice for drivers to bypass congestion when desired, offer a clear path for transit operators, and add an alternative to the general-purpose lanes that exist today. The result will be a network of express lanes that provide more reliable and predictable trip times. All Georgia Express Lanes rely on a dynamically priced toll in order to provide reliable travel times, especially during peak congestion.
As part of the GDOT MMIP project, SR 400 has an estimated budget of 11 billion dollars. GDOT has selected HNTB as its project management consultant. The project is expected to be completed by 2027.
Project Overview
The project is in the early stages of development, with initial concept design underway and access points still being determined. The project focuses on adding two buffer-separated express
16

lanes in each direction between the North springs MARTA station and McGinnis Ferry Road. An additional buffer-separated express lane will be constructed in each direction from McGinnis Ferry Road to McFarland Parkway. (See Figure 18.) After conducting a constructability study in 2019, GDOT realized that the addition of bus rapid transit (BRT) would extend the project completion date from 2024 to 2027. GDOT organized Public Information Open House (PIOH) events in February and March of 2019, to give the public opportunities to view current plans and provide feedback. The main aim of the project is to provide reliable travel time for drivers and transit users, and to improve regional connectivity through priced express lanes. Funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the project received a $184 million grant from the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program. GDOT is reviewing the possibility of an access point at Roswell, working closely with the City of Roswell staff to develop a feasible and efficient express lane solution. The selected developer and GDOT will share the responsibility for the Right of Way acquisition (50 percent by GDOT and 50 percent by the developer). GDOT has not yet formulated the incentives that will encourage the project's timely delivery.
The project has a maximum of 60 months float for substantial completion from the date of notice to proceed. The selected Design-Build team will have 90-percent control over the design, with GDOT retaining the remaining 10-percent. The project will use e-Builder initially to advertise the RFP, and then to manage information throughout the project lifecycle. The project has mandated the permanent collocation of the team. GDOT has reached out to other state DOTs that have executed similar projects, asking them to identify any potential risks and to share any lessons learned. Moreover, GDOT has developed a risk register for the project. The project team
17

will develop 3D models using the OpenRoads software platform. The project's DBFM team will be held responsible for any failure of the facility for a 35-year term. GDOT will do 30 percent of the project design. Project Team HNTB has been selected as the project management consultant. The Design-Build team has yet to be selected for the project. Project Timeline Figure 19 illustrates the projected timeline of the entire project.
Figure 4: SR 400 Project Timeline
18

Project Map

Figure 5 presents a conceptual project map for the SR 400 project.

Assessment of Readiness for Flash Tracking

Figure 5: SR 400 Project Map

A meeting was held on November 8, 2019, to introduce the project's Design-Build team to the 83 flash track best practices, and to assess its readiness to execute a flash track project.

Meeting Attendees

19

The meeting was attended by the principal investigator, the co-principal investigator, a representative from GDOT, consultants, and the Design-Build team members.
20

Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for Sr 400 Express Lanes Project Project team members or their representatives were asked to assess the project using both modules of the Flash Track Readiness Toolkit (i.e., one based on the 47 CII-developed practices/categories and the other based on the 36 xDOT-developed practices/categories). Figure 6 presents a screenshot of the results of the readiness assessment with the CII module.
Figure 6: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for the SR 400 Express Lanes Project As shown, the team scored highest in Planning Readiness (9.7 of 10 possible points). This preparedness led to the project's overall success. Following are the two lowest-scoring practices:
Using highly integrated 3D modeling with all major users updating a common database (Delivery category) 21

Accepting a non-traditional paradigm or mindset (Cultural category). Figure 7 presents a screenshot of the xDOT Flash Track Readiness assessment results. This module's readiness categories are as follows: (1) Right of Way & Utilities Readiness; (2) Preconstruction; (3) Contractual; (4) Planning; (5) Information Management; (6) Execution; and (7)
Traffic Management. As the figure shows, the project's highest score (10) was in the Information Management Readiness and ROW and Utilities Readiness categories.
Figure 7: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for SR 400 Express Lanes Project 22

The three lowest scoring practices were as follows: Employing Allowances for Certain Bid Items as Means of Risk Sharing (Contractual) Considering 3D and 4D Modeling of the Execution Sequence during Detailed Design (Planning) Considering Innovative Construction Materials that Accelerate Construction (Execution)
SR 400 Express Lanes Project Positives and Challenges
Presented below are the project team members' answers to the questions asked during the meeting about the positives/challenges they have encountered in eight project readiness assessment areas.
Contractual Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Contractual considerations? Table 8: Contractual Readiness for SR 400
Contractual Positives A responsible Engineer or Design-Build Integrator was employed on the developer side. ROW acquisition, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation were included in the D-
B contract. GDOT performs half, and the remaining half is performed by the D-B team. A risk-sharing contract was used to align project participants' interests.
23

Execution Readiness

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

Execution Positives

Table 9: Execution Readiness for SR 400

An Over the Shoulder (OTS) process was adopted for timely decision-making. The Design-Build team is encouraged to come up with innovative execution methods. Permanent collocation of the core team was made mandatory. Once the contract with the construction team is in place, maintenance people will be
included in the final design. Regular review and coordination meetings were held to discuss design, schedule, risks,
utilities, and environmental issues.

Planning Readiness

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

Planning Positives

Table 10: Planning Readiness for SR 400

Inter-phase and intra-phase concurrency for design and construction packages is encouraged.
Phasing of environmental permits is planned to match phased construction. The contract required 3D rendering to visualize what a camera will pick up. Changes happening during project development will be tracked through a project
controls process set up to determine their schedule and budget impacts on the project. GIS-based tools were used to identify resources such as utilities, ROW, and
environmental, for planning-level decisions across the project. A risk register was maintained to develop a list of risks, to determine the probability of
their occurrence, and their likely costs. These risks were monitored until they were resolved.

24

Information Management Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Information Management considerations?
Table 11: Information Management Readiness for SR 400 Information Management Positives A planned issue resolution process was included in the communication and management
plan. To continuously improve project processes, a lessons learned program was adopted to
evaluate similar past projects. The team used an integrated document management system called e-Builder to track
RFIs, QA/QC, and submittals.
Traffic Management Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Traffic Management considerations? Table 12: Traffic Management Readiness for SR 400
Traffic Management Positives Plans were developed for traffic management and traffic maintenance (to include
closure, detour, roles and responsibilities for incidents), to ensure efficient coordination between construction and traffic management. Regular meetings were conducted to maintain continuous public outreach and conduct media campaigns. The contract required the developer to formulate a safety plan to ensure worker/public safety. The project is employing a programmatic lane closure strategy.
25

Delivery Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Delivery considerations?

Table 13: Delivery Readiness for SR 400

Delivery Positives The contract administrative staff were
involved in development of procurement documents.
GDOT considered using innovative procurement practices, e.g., alliancing, target pricing, and the inclusion of flexibility.
Contractor was hired on the basis of ability to integrate the subcontractors and operators into the design.
The GECs collaborated by bringing the resources needed during pre-let, while the contractors were responsible for the post-let requirements.
The effort to educate subcontractors and suppliers on the volume of work was carried out successfully.

Delivery Challenges With seven projects in progress,
resources are limited.
GDOT does not use highly integrated 3D modeling to maintain a common database.

26

Organizational Readiness

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

Table 14: Organizational Readiness for SR 400

Organizational Positives Operations and maintenance personnel
were engaged in the development and design process, since it was a DesignBuild-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) project.
To guarantee a fully integrated team, the team had to demonstrate that it has worked together before.
Team building and partnering practices were employed, and partnering sessions were held with the developer.
The decision-making authority was delegated at the project level.

Organizational Challenges The owner (GDOT) is losing people and
has limited resources because of budget cuts. Hence, the owner lacks sufficient depth of resources and organizational strength.
GDOT lacks the resources to assign a dedicated engineer on the project; and much of the engineering function has been delegated to the developer's Engineer of Record, with oversight from the owner's GEC.

Cultural Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Cultural considerations?
Table 15: Cultural Readiness for SR 400
Cultural Challenges It was difficult to get people to change their mindsets, especially when it came to
adopting the innovative delivery method perspective. People had a hard time shifting to the D-B mindset from the D-B-B point of view. Establishing flexible project teams was a challenge, since there was a degree of rigidity on the pre-let side.

27

I-16 & I-95 Project
Another project slated for construction under the GDOT Major Mobility Investment Program (MMIP) was the reconstruction of the interchange at I-16 and I-95 in Chatham County. The project aims at improving the traffic flow and enhancing safety along I-16 and I-95, roadways stretching across one of Georgia's busiest freight corridors and together serving as gateways to Georgia's growing port in Savannah. The reconstruction is intended to increase the operational efficiency and safety of passenger cars and trucks, with the widening of I-16 aimed specifically at relieving traffic congestion and decreasing travel time for drivers.
Project Overview
The project will widen the I-16 mainline corridor along the inside median, increasing the existing general-purpose roadway from two to three lanes in each direction. The entire improvement includes the replacement of four bridges and the construction of three new bridges. Constructing a collector-distributor (CD) lane on I-95 northbound will be added to separate the vehicles exiting and entering from I-16. Additionally, lighting will be installed at the I-16/I-95 interchange. Replacing two existing loop ramps located on the west side of I-95 with an innovative turbine configuration of system-to-system ramps. To add highway capacity for more than 100,000 vehicles and to apprise drivers of real-time driving conditions, the project will install Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology, such as cameras and changeable message signs.
28

Project Team GDOT selected Savannah Mobility Contractors JV as the Design-Build team for the project. Project Timeline Figure 8 illustrates the projected timeline of the project.
Figure 8: I-16 and I-95 Interchange Reconstruction Project Timeline Project Map Figure 9 presents aerial image of the project area.
Figure 9: I-16 & I-95 Project Map 29

Assessment of Readiness for Flash Tracking A meeting to introduce 83 flash track best practices to the design-build team for this project was held on November 22, 2019. The purpose was to assess this stakeholder's readiness to execute the project on a flash track basis. Meeting Attendees The meeting was attended by the principal investigator, the co-principal investigator, a representative from GDOT, consultants, and the Design-Build team members. Flash Track Readiness Tool Results For I-16 & I-95 Project Project team members or their representatives were asked to assess the project using both modules of the Flash Track Readiness Toolkit (i.e., one based on the 47 CII-developed practices/categories and the other based on the 36 xDOT-developed practices/categories). Figure 10 presents a screenshot of the assessment results for the CII developed Flash Track categories, and Figure 26 presents a screenshot of the results for the xDOT-developed Flash Track Readiness assessment.
30

Figure 10: CII Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for I-16 & I-95
As shown in the figure, the project scored highest on contractual readiness (7.7 out of 10 possible points). The preparedness in this area led to the overall success of the project. The following three practices scored the lowest (each with a score of 0):
Involving contractors, trades, and vendors during the design phase (Delivery category)
Using highly integrated 3D modeling, with all major users updating a common database (Delivery category)
Engaging operations and maintenance personnel in the development and design process (Organizational category).
31

Figure 11 Error! Reference source not found.presents a screenshot of the results of the xDOT Flash Track Readiness assessment module. The categories in this module are as follows: (1) Right of Way & Utilities Readiness; (2) Pre-construction Readiness; (3) Contractual Readiness; (4) Planning Readiness; (5) Information Management Readiness; (6) Execution Readiness; and (7) Traffic Management Readiness. As the figure shows, the project's highest score (10) was in the Information Management category.
Figure 11: xDOT Flash Track Readiness Tool Results for I-16 & I-95 32

The three lowest scoring practices were the following: Having a 30-day state-owned float activity as a predecessor to the scheduled completion date, to absorb critical delays occasioned by the state (Planning category) Considering 3D and 4D modeling of the execution sequence during detailed design (Planning category) Considering innovative construction materials that accelerate construction (Execution category).
I-16 AND I-95 Project Positives and Challenges
Presented below are the project team members' answers to the questions asked during the meeting about the positives and challenges they have encountered in eight project readiness assessment areas.
Contractual Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Contractual considerations?
Table 16: Contractual Readiness for I-65 and I-95 Contractual Positives Partner meetings held every quarter to align project participants' interests. Funding early critical efforts were incorporated, and JV was allowed to schedule however
they want as long as they do not exceed predetermined cost caps per year.
33

Delivery Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Delivery considerations?
Table 17: Delivery Readiness for I-65 and I-95 Delivery Challenges The fact that subcontractors were not engaged in the design phase could have an adverse
impact on the design.
Execution Readiness

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

Table 18: Execution Readiness for I-65 and I-95

Execution Positives All the leads were collocated. Traditional beams and piles were
prefabricated.

Execution Challenges
Production staff members were not collocated, which detracted from their ability to feel the urgency of certain situations.
Innovative construction materials that could have accelerated construction were not considered.

34

ROW and Utilities Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to ROW and Utilities considerations?

Table 19: Execution Readiness for I-65 and I-95

ROW and Utilities Positives

ROW and Utilities Challenges

Certain utility owners were engaged early, and 25-percent acquisition was accomplished by GDOT.
The department identified 18 ROW parcels that were likely to be affected.
The state acquired three parcels identified before the award of the contract.

ROW due to utility relocation was not identified.
There was no utility and ROW coordination.

Pre-Construction Readiness

What are some issues the project experienced related to Pre-Construction readiness?

Table 20: Pre-Construction Readiness for I-65 and I-95

Pre-Construction Positives
GDOT performed sufficient geotechnical boring through pre-let, to apprise the contractor of some challenges.

Pre-Construction Challenges The environmental permitting process
is not well established for the DesignBuild team.
The environmental permitting pathway is similar to that of D-B-B, but should be different for D-B.

Even though GDOT collected sufficient geotechnical data, the Design-Build team had to verify the risk profile.

The Design-Build team is liable for all the sub-surface data collection, not the state. This risk transfer may pose a risk of delay and increased cost.

35

Planning Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Planning considerations? Table 21: Planning Readiness for I-65 and I-95
Planning Positives The beam and pile suppliers were local. All bridges except one were precast concrete. The contract required 3D rendering to visualize what the camera will pick up. Information Management Readiness
What are some issues the project experienced related to Information Management considerations?
Table 22: Information Management Readiness for I-65 and I-95 Information Management Positives An issue resolution process was included in the communication and management plan. An integrated document management system called e-Builder was used to track RFIs,
QA/QC, and submittals.
36

Traffic Management Readiness What are some issues the project experienced related to Traffic Management considerations?
Table 23: Information Management Readiness for I-65 and I-95 Traffic Management Positives To ensure efficient coordination between construction and traffic management, the
formulated a traffic management plan addressing closures, detours, and roles and responsibilities for incidents. The team deployed media platforms to ensure sufficient public outreach, e.g., TV and newsletters. A safety plan was developed to ensure the worker/public safety.
37

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PRESENCE OF FLASH TRACK BEST PRACTICES IN THE GDOT D-B MANUAL Figure 12 illustrates the degree to which the CII Flash Track Best Practices are present by project category in the GDOT D-B Manual (Georgia Department of Transportation 2018).
39

Figure 12: Presence of CII Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual by Category 40

Figure 13 illustrates the xDOT Flash Track Best in the GDOT D-B
41

degree to which the Practices are present Manual by category.

Figure 13: Presence of xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual by Category
Figure 14 illustrates the degree to which the CII Flash Track Best Practices in the Contractual category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 24 lists the specific Contractual flash track best practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.
Figure 14: CII Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 24: CII Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B Manual

1) Setting clear, specific scoping requirements (Tier 1) (pg. 5-13) 7) Funding early critical efforts (Tier 1) (pg. 1-4) 8) Reducing risks through collective efforts of all stakeholders (pg. 2-1, 2-5, 2-7)

2) Establishing performance-based specifications (pg. 3-22)
3) Aligning project participants' interests through contract (pg. 1-18) 4) Establishing contracting strategies specifically tailored to project conditions (pg. 1-3) 5) Establishing clear change management procedures (Tier 1)

42

6) Establishing an effective claims resolution process (pg. 5-13)
Figure 15 illustrates the degree to which the CII Flash Track Best Practices in the Delivery category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 25 lists the specific Delivery Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.
Figure 15: CII Delivery Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 25: CII Delivery Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual
9) Selecting team members and staff on the basis of their fast track experience or qualifications (Tier 1) (pg. 3-8). 12) Staffing with personnel with strong leadership capabilities (Tier 1) (pg. 5-3) 13) Employing innovative procurement practices (pg. 1-5, 2-8)

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT
D-B Manual
10) Focusing procurement decisions on construction priorities (Tier 1) (pg. 111, 1-13)
15) Involving contractors, trades, and vendors in the design phase (pg. 1-3, 225)

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual
11) Selecting and awarding contracts to subcontractors in a timely manner (Tier 1)
14) Using highly integrated 3D modelling, with all major users updating a common database 16) Seeking out suppliers and specialty contractors as a source for time- saving innovations

43

Figure 16 illustrates the degree to which the CII Flash Track Best Practices in the Organizational category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 26 lists the specific Organizational Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual. Figure 16: CII Organizational Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B
Manual

Table 26: CII Organizational Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B
Manual

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual

20) Delegating authority to the project level (i.e. maximizing decision-making authority at the project level) (Tier 1)
21) Empowering the project team (ensuring that each organization is led by an empowered leader) (pg. 219)
22) Having an owner with sufficient depth of resources and organizational strength (pg.-1-4) 24) Having an engaged/empowered

17) Engaging operations and maintenance personnel in the development and design process 18) Establishing fully integrated project teams, including design, construction, specialty contractors, commissioning, operations personnel (Tier 1) 19) Using team building and partnering practices
23) Selecting personnel

44

owner's engineer (owner's representative) (pg. 1-14) 25) Staffing with multi-skilled personnel (pg. 3-8)

with a can-do attitude and willingness to tackle challenging tasks

Figure 17 illustrates the degree to which the CII Flash Track Best Practices in the Cultural category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual.

Table 27 lists the specific Cultural Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.
Figure 17: CII Cultural Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 27: CII Cultural Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual
27) Having an active, involved, and fully committed owner

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B
Manual
26) Accepting a non-traditional paradigm or mindset
28) Establishing flexible project teams that avoid rigid hierarchy 29) Maintaining a no-blame culture and a mutually supportive environment 30) Having open communication and transparency (Tier 1)

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B Manual

45

31) Staffing with cooperative and collaborative personnel 32) Having an open-minded team 33) Creating executive alignment among the contracted parties
Figure 18 illustrates the degree to which the CII Flash Track Best Practices in the Planning
category are present in the
GDOT D-B Manual. Table 28
lists the specific Planning Flash
Track Best Practices,
categorizing them as present,
partially present, or absent in the
manual.
Figure 18: CII Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 28: CII Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual
35) Performing exhaustive front-end planning (pg. 1-5, 25, 2-11)
38) Providing enough resources to critical path items (Tier 1) (pg. 1-5, 2-5, 2-11)

Best Practices Partially Present in
the GDOT D-B Manual
34) Emphasizing coordination planning during the design process (Tier 1) (pg. 52) 37) Monitoring and driving corrective actions through the project controls process (pg. 1-14) 40) Recognizing and

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual
36) Identifying and procuring long lead time items (Tier 1)
39) Considering speed of fabrication and construction during the selection of design alternatives (Tier 1)

46

managing the additional flash track risks (Tier 1) (pg. 2-2)

Figure 19 illustrates the degree to which the CII Flash Track Best Practices in the Execution category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 29 lists the specific Execution Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.
Figure 19: CII Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 29: CII Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual
41) Collocating the project team (i.e. owner, designer, builder, and/or key vendors) (pg. 2-25) 43) Dedicating full-time personnel to the project (Tier 1) (pg. 2-7, 2-14, 2-19) 47) Conducting frequent and effective project review meetings (pg. 5-11, 2-7)

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-
B Manual
44) Selecting appropriate construction methods (Tier 1) (pg. 1-4, 5-7)
46) Employing innovative construction methods

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual 42) Simplifying approval procedures (Tier 1)
45) Minimizing handoffs

47

Figure 20 illustrates the degree to which the xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in the ROW and Utilities category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 30 lists the specific ROW and Utilities Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual. Figure 20: xDOT ROW & Utilities Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT
D-B Manual

Table 30: xDOT ROW & Utilities Category- Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT
D-B Manual

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B Manual

49) Having early utility and ROW coordination (pg. 115)

48) Having early engagement of utility owners

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)

48

Figure 21 illustrates the degree to which the xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in the Pre-Construction category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 31 lists the specific Pre-Construction Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.

Figure 21: xDOT Pre-Construction Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 31: xDOT Pre-Construction Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual
54) Conducting environmental permitting and scope development in parallel (pg. 2-11)
55) Gathering accurate geotechnical(sub-surface) data to reduce risk (pg. 5-7) 56) Establishing programmatic agreements to streamline the process for handling routine environmental requirements (pg. 3-20)

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT
D-B Manual
57) Using preconstruction analysis software to evaluate and select alternative project scenarios

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual

49

Figure 22 illustrates the degree to which the xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in the Contractual category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 32 lists the specific Contractual Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.

Figure 22: xDOT Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 32: xDOT Contractual Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual
58) Having a responsible in-charge engineer/designbuild integrator (pg. 5-2)
60) Using incentives to encourage earlier project completion (pg. 3-22)

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B
Manual
59) Including ROW, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation in design-build contract

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual
61) Employing allowances for certain bid items as a means of risk sharing 62) Using existing openended contracts to procure time-critical elements

50

Figure 23 illustrates the degree to which the xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in the Planning category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 33 lists the specific Planning Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.
Figure 23: xDOT Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 33: xDOT Planning Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual
67) Considering both inter-phase and intraphase concurrency for design and construction packages

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B
Manual
65) Phasing environmental permits to match phased construction (pg. 2-10)

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual
63) Having a 30-day state owned float activity as a predecessor to the scheduled completion date, to absorb critical delays caused by the state

64) Considering 3D and 4D modeling of the execution sequence during detailed design 66) Using software to assist with scheduling of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement, given the design, construction, and

51

environmental factors 68) Establishing the bridge fabrication facility near the project location Figure 24 illustrates the degree to which the xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in the Information
Management category are present
in the GDOT D-B Manual.
Table 34 lists the specific
Information Management Flash
Track Best Practices, categorizing
them as present, partially present,
or absent in the manual.
Figure 24: xDOT Information Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 34: xDOT Information Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices

in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B
Manual

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual

71) Utilizing an integrated document management system for tracking requests for information (RFIs), QA/QC, submittals, and other time-sensitive documents

69) Collecting lessons learned from similar projects
70) Developing a planned issue resolution process

52

Figure 25Figure 24 illustrates the degree to which the xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in the Execution category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual. Table 35 lists the specific Execution Flash Track Best Practices, categorizing them as present, partially present, or absent in the manual.
Figure 25: xDOT Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 35: xDOT Execution Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B
Manual

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual

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

53

Figure 26Figure 24 illustrates the degree to which the xDOT Flash Track Best Practices in the Traffic Management category are present in the GDOT D-B Manual.
Table 36 lists the specific Traffic
Management Flash Track Best
Practices, categorizing them as present,
partially present, or absent in the
manual.

Figure 26: xDOT Traffic Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Table 36: xDOT Traffic Management Category--Presence of Flash Track Best Practices in GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Present in the GDOT D-B Manual

Best Practices Partially Present in the GDOT D-B
Manual

Best Practices Absent from the GDOT D-B
Manual

78) Ensuring efficient coordination of contraction with the management of traffic issues (pg. 1-4, 2-17)

79) Utilizing a lane closure time bank (pg. 2-17, 1-4)
80) Deploying continual public outreach, media campaigns, and dedicated communications personnel (pg. 2-17, 1-4) 81) Ensuring worker/public health and safety (pg. 2-17, 14) 82) Performing exhaustive lane closure planning (pg. 217, 1-4) 83) Implementing smarter

54

work zones to dynamically manage traffic and reduce work zone impacts (pg. 2-17, 1-4)
55

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE GDOT D-B MANUAL FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FLASH TRACKING

Table 37: SWOT Analysis of GDOT D-B Manual for Flash Tracking--Focusing on Strengths

Strength

Corresponding Best Practice Number

Explanation

Stipulated Fee(pg.1-11)

7. Funding early critical efforts 13. Employing innovative procurement practices

Two-phase Best Value Selection 25. Staffing with multimethod (Financial, Technical) skilled personnel (Pg.1-7)

ATC (Alternate technical concept)(Pg.3-19)

46. Employing innovative construction methods 44. Selecting appropriate construction methods (Tier 1)

To gain ownership of the proposed design ideas, GDOT pays all D-B firms a fee as they enter the bidding process. This ownership enables GDOTto use any of the ideas proposed--even those of the nonwinning firms--to create a final design thatbestmeets project criteria.
GDOT follows a twophase review process, first issuing an RFQ and shortlisting five proposers on the basis of their SOQs. Next, these five candidates respond to an RFP for technical and financial proposals. The technical proposals assure the technical experience and knowledge of the project team, while the financial proposals ensure the best price for the project. GDOT selects the proposer with the highest combined score.
D-B firms can propose changes to the basic configurations, project scope, design criteria, and construction criteria provided by GDOT in the RFP. These proposed changes can provide new ideas and techniques equal

57

Strength

Corresponding Best Practice Number

Collocation of team (pg. 2-18)

41. Collocating the project team

OID-PM to co-ordinate with the office of utilities as soon as possible (pg. 2-13)

48. Having early engagement of utility owners (Partially) 27. Having an active, involved, and fully committed owner

RFP not advertised until all environmental permits are concluded (pg. 2-10)

54. Conducting environmental permitting and scope development in parallel. 56. Establishing programmatic agreements to streamline the process for handling routine environmental requirements

Explanation
to or better than those set in the RFP requirements. ATCs provide flexibility in the design and/or construction of the entire project or a part of the project, in order to enhance innovation and achieve efficiency. Collocation is encouraged by GDOT on multi-year complex projects, which requires a large degree of coordination between the D-B Team and GDOT design oversight staff. On less complex projects, alternative forms of design coordination are encouraged, e.g., regularly scheduled meetings. The D-B manual cites as one of the core OID-PM responsibilities the timely co-ordination with the office of utilities, to identify any utilities on site and to strategize their early acquisition. This process can save valuable time on flash track projects. If possible, the RFP should not be advertised until after the environmental permitting process. The OID-PM should base the D-B procurement schedule on this assumption. In some cases, the RFP can be advertised prior to the conclusion of the environmental process; however, the project

58

Strength
Early environmental permits (Pg. 2-11).
Geotechnical Investigation provided by GDOT for information purpose only before RFP (pg. 2-14) 5DPM(pg. 2-2)

Corresponding Best Practice Number
54. Conducting environmental permitting and scope development in parallel.
55. Gathering accurate geotechnical (subsurface) data to reduce risk

Explanation
cannot be awarded until the environmental permits are issued, unless otherwise approved by the chief engineer. If GDOT determines that the D-B project will be procured and awarded prior to issuance of the environmental permits, the requirements set forth in 23 CFR Part 636.109 will apply. The D-B manual recommends making early contact with the regulatory agencies responsible for permits, to coordinate submittals and approved schedules, and to investigate the potential for phased permitting, simultaneous reviews, and fast tracking, among other time-saving measures. This contact should begin as soon as possible, to apprise the regulators of the imminent GDOT need for a permit for the project. The D-B manual says that GDOT should advertise the geotechnical information they have about the project site, adding that the D-B firm canre-performany additional tests theydeem necessary. GDOT employs a technique called Five Dimension Project Management (5DPM) to

59

Strength

Corresponding Best Practice Number

Maintenance of Traffic (2-17)

78. Ensuring efficient coordination of construction with the management of traffic issues

Incentives/disincentives to encourage contractors (Pg.322)

60. Using incentives to encourage earlier project completion

Explanation
gauge project complexity. Using 5DPM, the program manager can plan and prepare risk mitigation processes, with the following dimensions in mind: cost, schedule, technical aspects, context (external factor), and financial analysis. The manual states that the D-B team is responsible for developing staging and traffic control plans. GDOT should conduct sufficient preliminary engineering to define the minimum traffic control requirements and lane closure restrictions. The RFP should identify these traffic control requirements and restrictions as available work hours or as available lane closure parameters. It should also stipulate any liquidated damages associated with violations of these requirements and restrictions. The D-B manual permits D-B contract incentives for almost any performance criterion, including public involvement and public relations, maintenance of traffic volumes, teamwork, design innovations, and environmental performance.For instance, incentive contracts can be crafted to accelerate traffic shift. Contractors can

60

Strength Engaging subject matter experts (SMEs) as early as possible (Pg.5-2)
Phasing of work (pg. 5-9)

Corresponding Best Practice Number
67. Considering both inter-phase and intraphase concurrency for design and construction packages
61

Explanation
submit a cost reduction incentive proposal (CRIP), the cost savings of which would be shared equally between the contractor and GDOT. The OID-PM is responsible for engaging (and reengaging) GDOT SMEs as early as possible after the notice of award, to discuss the following:
the D-B delivery process
critical GDOT staff roles
the dynamic between the design and construction phases
various risks associated with the project, e.g., geotechnical and environmental aspects.
The D-B manual encourages the D-B team to create work phasing opportunities. To do this, the team must submit a work phasing plan for the areas involved. This plan should include a checklist for each area, demonstrating the necessity of each checklist item (in accordance with the RFP). GDOT requires this justification before it will issue a conditional Notice To Proceed 3 (NTP 3), which releases the D-B

Strength

Corresponding Best Practice Number

Additional Project Management Plan (Pg.5-13)

78. Ensuring efficient coordination of Construction with the management of traffic issues

Use of various software (pg. 510)

57. Using preconstruction analysis software to evaluate and select alternative project scenarios

Explanation
team to perform construction-related activities. This planning enables the team to develop milestones, monitor project progress, and identify and prevent potential delays. The D-B manual recommends that complex traffic phasing should be described in the PMP wherever applicable. Protected environmental zones and sensitive areas should be shown and described on mapping contained in the appendices of the manual. Site manager construction management software for daily reporting and monthly payment estimates E-builder project management software to correspond with the D-B team for submittals, file management, and document controls. ASTER software used for materials tracking and testing reporting.

62

Table 38: SWOT Analysis of GDOT D-B Manual for Flash Tracking--Focusing on Weaknesses

Weakness
No conflict resolution plan requirement

Corresponding Best Practice Number
70. Develop a planned issue resolution process

Long Bidding Process

Reference Information Documents (RID) (pg. xiv)
Lumpsum Contracts (pg. 1-3)
Consultants not allowed to bid on project (pg. 1-19)

Explanation
The D-B manual requires the D-B firm to develop a conflict resolution plan as part of the project management plan. The D-B manual includes one- and two-phase processes. In the two-phase process, bidders undergo two reviews before being selected. In the first phase, bidders submit their SOQs in response to the RFQ and are shortlisted. In the second phase, the shortlisted bidders submit a technical proposal and a price proposal. Because this lengthy process can slow down a flash-track project, shortening the bidding process would be beneficial. GDOT does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the RID provided in the RFP. This can create confusion for the proposers. In the case of flash-track projects, the RID can be made more accountable. Research has shown that lumpsum contracts cause cost increases because of the higher contingencies assumed by stakeholders. [1] On flash-track projects, alternative contract types can be considered. Consultants who help prepare documents such as

63

Weakness

Corresponding Best Practice Number

Explanation
the RFQ, PNA, and RFP may be the most qualified for the project. However, their exclusion from the bidding process probably cannot be changed because projects are publicly funded and because of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements.

64

Table 39: SWOT Analysis of GDOT D-B Manual for Flash Tracking--Focusing on Opportunities

Opportunities

Corresponding Best Practice
Number

Explanation

DB Manual Section

Contractual Considerations 1. Add Flash Track Implementation in Contract
2. Include Disincentives for Non-Conformance of Work (NCW) in the Contract
3. Change orders

2. Establishing performance-based specifications 4. Establishing contract strategies specifically tailored to project conditions
60. Using incentives to encourage earlier project completion
5. Establishing clear change management procedures (Tier

The contract is first in order of precedence in D-B project documents. Fast-tracking measures like collocation, adoption of innovative construction techniques, and use of certain technologies and software can be added to the contract. Risk-sharing measures canalso be included in the contract, to spread the risks of cost overruns and schedule delays among the major stakeholders. This risk management will ensure greater involvement of all project stakeholders.
The rework associated with NCW leads to schedule delay. Contractually stipulating stringent penalties or disincentives for NCW will motivate the D-B team to carefully execute the work and prevent potential delays. The D-B manual is silent on the number of change orders allowed on a project.Typically,

3.6 Request for Proposals
3.6 Request for Proposals
3.4 Request for Qualifications 3.8.4 Use of Incentives in

65

Opportunities

Corresponding Best Practice
Number
1)

Selection/Bidding Considerations 1. Blanket Partnership Agreement (Solution for weakness 2: Long bidding process)

2. Modifying the selection criteria in the bidding process

9. Selecting team members and staff on the basis of their fast track experience or qualifications (Tier 1)

3. Creating an online portal for

62. Using existing open-ended

Explanation
in the D-B process, nearly 70 of any 100 drawings must be redone and must be reverified by GDOT. If possible, GDOT should add incentives or disincentives for the D-B firm to prevent unnecessary changes during construction and, thus, to reduce the number of change orders.

DB Manual Section
Design-Build Contracts

To overcome the shortcomings of the long bidding process, GDOT can enter into a Blanket Partnership Agreement, which essentially entails the pre-selection of a set of D-B firms and subcontractors who have previously met the selection criteria. To expedite the selection process, these firms can then be invited to bid for flash track projects.
Add weightage to prior flash track project experience during the selection process, in addition to considerations of the financial and technical soundness of the bidding firm. A web portal showing the work to be done on

1.4 Design-Build Project Selection
3.4 Request for Qualifications
3.1 Websites and SharePoint

66

Opportunities subcontractors

Corresponding Best Practice
Number
contracts to procure timecritical elements

4. Encourage Innovative Ideas for Flash Tracking from Bidding Firms

13. Employing innovative procurement practices 46. Employing innovative construction methods

Explanation
the project will enable multiple subcontractors to accurately assess their qualifications for the job. This can ensure the selection of the most relevant subcontractors. Subcontractors can also showcase their capabilitiesand show proof of previous work on the portal. This can expedite bidder shortlisting in the twophase selection process. Allow bidding firms to come up with innovative ways to reduce project duration. This can help GDOT gauge the readiness and capability of a firm to successfully complete a flash track project. If possible, also pay the firms a stipulated fee, to retain the ideas submitted for future use.

DB Manual Section
Sites
3.4 Request for Qualifications

5. Detailed Traffic Management Plan in RFP Phase

The D-B manual addresses the submission of traffic phasing in PMP. But GDOT has scope for expansion here and can ask the D-B team to submit its plans and strategies on the following as early as

3.6 Request for Proposals

67

Opportunities
6. Ask bidders to discuss the risks of flash track implementation, and solicit their recommended risk mitigation measures
Project Development Considerations 1. Hierarchy of values

Corresponding Best Practice
Number
40. Recognizing and managing additional flash track risks (Tier 1)
1. Setting clear, specific scoping requirements (Tier 1) 4. Establishing contracting strategies specifically tailored to project conditions

Explanation

DB Manual Section

the RFP phase: utilizing a lane closure time bank ensuringthe health/safety of workers and the public performing exhaustive lane closure planning traffic management planning reduction of work zone impacts.
In the RFP, ask bidders to provide their risk analysis for flash track implementationand the risk mitigation measures they would take. This can help GDOT determine the qualification and readiness of the D-B firm to execute a flash track project.

3.6 Request for Proposals

GDOT should identify its priorities for each flash track project, e.g., quality, traffic management, and cost, among others. The D-B firm can then design and execute the project with these priorities in mind. This alignment

2.1 Project Development

68

Opportunities
2. Increase the safety factor
3. Referencing the schedule of former successful flash track projects
4. Add Conflict Resolution Plan to PMP
5. Add a Flash Track Quality Management Plan (QMP) category
6. Requirement of a single Project Management Plan (PMP) for flash track projects with multiple projects sponsors (pg. 513)

Corresponding Best Practice
Number
69. Collecting lessons learned from similar projects
70. Developing a planned issue resolution process

Explanation

DB Manual Section

of priorities can reduce conflicts, change orders, and unnecessary schedule delays. On flash track projects, the safety factor can be increased during design. This can reduce the potential for delays due to safety issues. D-B teams can deploy scheduling techniques used successfully on similar past projects. These can be used as a reference for faster schedule development. Having a process for conflict resolution will ensure that issues are settled quickly and smoothly, should they arise. A D-B team submits a QMP consisting of two main categories: 1) Design QMP; and 2) Construction QMP. A third, flash trackspecific category can be added, to address the quality control issues associated with flash track implementation. The D-B manual allows projects with multiple project sponsors to have each project sponsor submit a PMP describing its portion of the project to FHWA for approval. This approval of multiple

2.1 Project Development
2.4 Design-Build Schedule
5.9 Project Management
5.11.1 Quality Management Plan
5.9.1 Project Management Plan

69

Opportunities
Execution Considerations 1. Work hours
2. Schedule Acceleration
3. Funding Early

Corresponding Best Practice
Number

Explanation
PMPs can take significantly longer than that of a single PMP. In addition, having separate PMPscan hinder any project sponsor collaboration that the development of a single PMP might otherwise facilitate.

DB Manual Section

38. Providing enough resources to critical path items (Tier 1)
10. Focusing

The D-B manual could add an appendix on work hours for laborers and could recommend dual shifts, depending on project needs. It can also add rules for smoother work shift transitions, e.g., requiring overlap of superintendents. Productivity on a project can be calculated by dividing quantity of work done by labor hours expended. Using this crew productivity formula, D-B teams can calculate the time required to complete the work. This projection method can be used to calculate the schedule effects of changes to the number of workers on a project and to the duration of their shifts. GDOT makes the

2.1 Project Development
2.1 Project Development
2.1 Project

70

Opportunities
Critical Efforts

Corresponding Best Practice
Number
procurement decisions on construction priorities (Tier 1) 7. Funding early critical efforts (Tier 1) 38. Providing enough resources to critical path items (Tier 1)

4. Conducting frequent and effective project review meetings

47. Conducting frequent and effective project review meetings

5. Integrate D-B Team Independent Design Reviewer and GDOT Design Reviewer

45. Minimizing handoffs

Explanation
payment for mobilization after its issuance of the NoticeToProceed 3 (NTP 3), which releases the D-B team to perform construction-related activities. Instead, earlier payment could help the D-B team begin preliminary work or order materials with long lead times. This could enable construction to start as soon as NTP 3 issuance, or it could reduce the risk of delayed delivery of long lead time materials. The D-B manual suggests monthly meetings with key stakeholders. On flash track projects, this frequency can be changed to weekly meetings to ensure that critical path activities are progressing smoothly, and to increase readiness to solve any emergencies that might arise. The D-B manual requires the D-B team to assign an independent design reviewer. By integrating the GDOT design reviewer and the

DB Manual Section
Development 2.3.2 Identify and Evaluate Flexible
5.5.2 Regular Meetings
5.1/5.2 GDOT D-BTeamRoles and Responsibilities

71

Opportunities

Corresponding Best Practice
Number

Explanation
D-B design reviewer, the team can ensure a faster and more efficient review process.

DB Manual Section

72

GDOT DESIGN-BUILD MANUAL APPENDIX FOR FLASH TRACK PROJECTS
To help GDOT incorporate Flash Track Best Practices that are currently absent from its DB manual, this section provides recommendations for additional statement inserts. These recommendations are highlighted in red.
1.7 Roles and Responsibilities
Programmatic GEC roles and responsibilities may include the following (Page.1-14): Overlapping environmental and ROW acquisition if a single firm is responsible for both tasks, real or perceived conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
Roles and responsibilities of the GEC assigned to each project may include the following (Page.1-15):
ROW and Utilities GEC o ROW acquisition should be started during conceptual design (20%-50% Design)
2.3 Design-Build Cost Estimate
4. Prior to submitting the RFP review request to the GDOT Office of Engineering Services (refer to Section 2.2 Design-Build RFP Review), the OID-PM will ensure that two cost estimates are developed for the project in the GDOT Cost Estimation System (CES) tool (refer to CES Cost Estimating Documents found on GDOT R.O.A.D.S webpage):
73

a. A detailed Design-Bid-Build construction cost estimate based on reasonably assumed quantities, using typical GDOT Design-Bid-Build pay items (Page 2-24); for certain bid items with substantial scope uncertainty, GDOT may consider designating specific cost allowances in accordance with the RFP, to spread the risk.
5.1 GDOT Roles and Responsibilities
5.1.1 Office of Innovative Delivery (Page 5-1)
Retrieval of lessons learned from similar past projects and sharing them with the project team.
Development of efficient approval procedures, for example, by adopting an over-theshoulder review process.
5.2 Design-Build Team Roles and Responsibilities
5.2.2 Similarly, GDOT should designate its own counterpart to the utilities coordinator. The Design-Build Team has the primary responsibility for controlling and managing the work, design, and construction with quality in mind (Page 5-5).
5.2.9 Design-Build Team Operation and Maintenance Manager The Design-Build team should follow the GDOT requirements for operation and maintenance, to ensure the maintainability of the proposed design.
74

5.2.10 Integrated Design-Build Team The Design-Build team should establish a fully integrated project team commensurate with the scope of the project. The Design-Build team should use team building and partnering practices.
5.2.11 Construction Means and Methods The schedule implications should be considered for prefabricated project elements that are on the critical path. Innovative construction materials should be considered, to accelerate construction. Consideration should be given to implementing a construction-driven design.
5.5.1 Post-Award Kickoff Meeting (Page 5-11) Jointly develop an understanding of the issue resolution process to be followed throughout the project.
5.5.2 Regular Meetings (Page 5-11) The Design-Build Team should use focused workshops to facilitate timely decisionmaking.
75

5.6 Schedule Development and Management The Design-Build team should consider 3D and 4D modeling of the execution sequence during detailed design. To optimize the paving schedule, the Design-Build team should consider using specialized software that takes design, construction, and environmental constraints into account. If the project involves bridge construction, the Design-Build team should consider establishing the bridge fabrication facility near the project location. The Design-Build team should identify and procure long lead time items early on.
5.9.1.1 Additional Project Management Plan Considerations When applicable, a provision for a shuttle bus service for construction workers to take them from a common parking lot to the job site should be included in the Transportation Management Plan (TMP).
5.11.1.1 Design Quality Management Plan Design should be developed on a highly integrated 3D modelling platform, with all major users sharing a common cloud-based database. The Design-Builder should aim to minimize handoffs between project participants (e.g., early involvement of key subcontractors, suppliers, and other downstream participants). Design Decision Making o When selecting design alternatives, the Design-Build team should consider the speed of fabrication and construction.
76

5.16 Utility Design and Relocations Designating a Utilities Coordinator to be the principal contact for all utility-related Project Activities. Requesting sub-surface utility engineering from utilities owners. If further verification is needed, the Design-Build team should perform the necessary checks to confirm utility location.
5.18.1 Subcontracts The Design-Build Team will prepare and submit subcontracts in accordance with the GDOT Construction Manual and the Design-Build Construction SOP.
The Design-Build Team should select and award contracts to subcontractors in a timely manner.
In accordance with the contract documents, the Design-Build team should consider using competitive open-ended contracts to procure time-critical elements.
The Design-Build team should seek out suppliers and specialty contractors as sources of time-saving innovations.
5.22 Post Design-Build Evaluation Lessons learned from the project should be gathered and chronicled.
77

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADDENDUM TO RFQ FOR SR 25 AT SAVANNAH & MIDDLE RIVER BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT
P.I. No. 0013741 & 0013742 SR 25 at Savannah & Middle River Bridges Replacement Project Date Posted:2/26/2021
Georgia Department of Transportation
Request for Qualifications RFQ 484-02262021DB To Provide
Design-Build Services for SR 25 at Savannah & Middle River Bridges Replacement Project
P.I. No. 0013741 & 0013742 Chatham County, GA
Statements of Qualification Due: March 25, 2021
Georgia Department of Transportation One Georgia Center
600 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308
79

Following are recommendations for inclusion in the RFQ for Design-Build Services for SR 25 at Savannah & Middle River Bridges Replacement Project (Georgia Department of Transportation 2021).
1) Consider adding statements in section VI.B.4 about the Lead Contractor's experience with the following: o Working within a fully integrated team o Early involvement of key downstream supply chain participants.
3) Consider adding statements in section VI.B.5 about the Lead Design Consultant's experience with the following: o Over-the-shoulder reviews o Construction-driven designs o Fabrication-driven designs o Maintenance-driven designs o Working within a fully integrated team
4) In section VI.B.7, consider adding the following: The narrative should include a section describing lessons learned from similar past projects.
80

ADDENDUM TO RFP FOR SR 25 AT SAVANNAH & MIDDLE RIVER BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT
81

Following are recommendations for inclusion in the RFP for Design-Build Services for SR 25 at Savannah & Middle River Bridges Replacement Project (Georgia Department of Transportation 2021 ).

Exhibit C

We recommend that GDOT considers adding the following section to Exhibit C.

C.1.6 Additional Flash Track Considerations

GDOT values proposers who demonstrate in their technical proposals their approach to: Creating a fully integrated team. Utilizing 3D/4D modeling technology in design development and construction execution. Having an early involvement of key downstream supply chain participants. Incorporating a construction-driven design. Incorporating a fabrication-driven design. Incorporating a maintenance-driven design. Incorporating an over-the-shoulder reviews in a collocating environment.

Exhibit E

We recommend that GDOT considers adding the following to Table E-1 in section E.1.2.

Technical Section Approach to Flash Tracking

Maximum Score Bonus Points (?)

82

REVISED TEMPLATE FOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS To incorporate the flash track best practices currently missing from the GODT RFQ, this section provides recommendations for additional statement inserts into a GDOT RFQ Template. The RFQ template for I-285 & SR 400 Reconstruction Project was used as an example (Georgia Department of Transportation 2014). The recommended inserts into Exhibits E and F of the RFQ are highlighted in red.
EXHIBIT E SOQ FORMAT AND CONTENT
E.2.2.1 Technical Information
(c) Respondent Experience Summary SOQs shall include a written statement of no more than three pages describing the Respondent's overall technical experience with respect to the Project. Respondents may highlight relevant projects not otherwise included in Forms C-1 and C-2 to the extent they demonstrate depth of experience [with similar project types and with fast track and/or flash track project delivery].
EXHIBIT F
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING
F.2 Technical Qualifications and Capability (45% Weighting)
83

(a) The extent and depth of the Respondent's and its individual team members' experience with and degree of success related to designing and constructing comparable projects [, and these parties' experience with fast track and/or flash track project delivery.] (b) The stability, strength, [can-do attitude], and likelihood of success of the proposed management structure and team; and
84

1. INTRODUCTION
The Georgia Department of Transportation ("GDOT"), an agency of the State of Georgia ("State"), hereby requests the sealed submittal of statements of qualifications ("SOQs") from Respondents desiring to develop ______________Project (the "Project") [using the Flash Tracking Approach (i.e., faster fast tracking or heightened schedule concurrency)] through a Design-Build-Finance ("DBF") Agreement approved by the State Transportation Board and signed by the Developer and the State Road and Tollway Authority ("SRTA"), an instrumentality of the State. Under such DBF Agreement, the Developer will be required to design, construct, and partially finance the Project through innovative project delivery and financing solutions.
This Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") is issued in accordance with the provisions of Sections 32-2-78 through 32-2-80 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (the "Georgia Code"), Chapter 672-17 of the Rules of the Georgia Department of Transportation (the "Rules") and other applicable laws and guidelines. This RFQ is being issued as the first phase in the request for proposals ("RFP") process pursuant to Section 32-2-80(a)(2) of the Georgia Code. GDOT will conduct a pass/fail and responsiveness review prior to evaluating and scoring the SOQs. Only those SOQs deemed responsive and deemed to pass the pass/fail criteria will be scored and eligible to be shortlisted. Subject to Section 7, Respondents that are considered most qualified pursuant to Rule 672-17-.04(b)(3) in response to this RFQ (also referred to herein as "shortlisted") will be invited to submit proposals ("Proposals") in response to a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the Project to be issued by GDOT. Initially
85

capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
GDOT has assembled a set of documents relating to the Project that will be available to prospective Respondents for review on the Website. A list of the Project Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Project Documents are included in this RFQ for the purpose of providing information in GDOT's possession to Respondents. GDOT has not determined whether the Project Documents are accurate, complete, or pertinent, or of any value to Respondents. GDOT makes no representation, warranty or guarantee as to, and shall not be responsible for, the accuracy, completeness, or pertinence of the Project Documents, and, in addition, shall not be responsible for any conclusions drawn therefrom.
2. DESCRIPTION OF OPPORTUNITY
2.1 Background
GDOT is authorized to develop, implement and administer its public-private partnership program ("P3 Program") pursuant to Sections 32-2-78 through 32-2-80 of the Georgia Code. The P3 Program is intended to seek innovative project delivery and innovative financing solutions from the private sector to meet the State's transportation infrastructure needs. The objectives of the P3 Program are identified in Section 672-17-.01 of the Rules. The Project is being proposed to"___________________". GDOT has concluded that utilizing private-sector technical innovation and financial resources through a DBF Agreement is the best way to ensure cost-
86

effective and [expedited delivery of the Project] and provide needed improvements to the public. SRTA and GDOT shall enter into various agreements including, but not limited to, an Intergovernmental Agreement, whereby GDOT will be designated and serve as the manager for the Project. Additional details regarding the respective responsibilities of SRTA and GDOT with respect to the Project will be provided during the RFP phase of the procurement.
2.2 Project opportunity
It is anticipated that the Developer will perform all work associated with the design and construction of the Project, as well as certain financing obligations, through a DBF Agreement. GDOT intends to select a single Shortlisted Proposer to enter into the DBF Agreement.
GDOT is seeking innovative approaches to addressing complex technical issues related to maintenance of traffic, staging, and construction, under heavy volumes in a complex urban environment. [GDOT encourages ideas that bring value and efficiency, as well as flexibility in the design, schedule, and construction of the Project.]
2.3 Project name Describe the type of facility the project aims to construct, for example, "Renovation of bridge XYZ," and mention its location and the desired improvement.
2.4 Project Environmental Status Mention the permits that have or are being pursued by GDOT.
87

2.5 Preliminary Estimates of Construction Costs The current, preliminary GDOT estimate for the Design-Build (DB) portion of the project is approximately _____________ which includes, but not limited to ____________________.
2.6 Project Funding GDOT anticipates that approximately _________of funding from public sources will be available for the Project for payment by GDOT to the Developer during the construction period, although such amount is subject to change. The Developer will be responsible for financing the remaining amounts needed to fund the Developer's design and construction costs during the construction period. SRTA will agree to pay the Developer after the construction period in accordance with the terms of the DBF Agreement. GDOT will provide funds to SRTA to pay the Developer under the DBF Agreement. GDOT currently anticipates that the sources of funding to pay the Developer will come from _________.
Respondents are advised that private participation and funding will be essential to complete all Project elements under the DBF Agreement. The Respondent's ability to secure or provide private financing in an amount sufficient to complete the Project required under the DBF Agreement will be a key element in the evaluation of the SOQ and the responses to the RFP.
88

2.7 Right-Of-Way Acquisition
Respondents should note that the Project will require the acquisition of new right-of-way. GDOT will be responsible for acquiring all right-of-way in connection with Project _________. The Developer will be responsible for providing right-of-way acquisition services for any remaining parcels for Project__________. However, GDOT will be responsible for the payment for the real property costs for these parcels.
[The Developer will be responsible for starting ROW acquisition during the conceptual design phase. If the Developer is required to acquire Environmental permits, the permitting process must be conducted in parallel with the ROW acquisition.]
If the Developer determines that additional right-of-way is required beyond the limits identified by GDOT as being required for Project P.I. No. 0000784 and Project P.I. No. 721850-, then the Developer shall acquire such additional right-of-way at the Developer's expense.
The RFP will provide further details regarding the right-of-way acquisition scope of services. 2.8 GDOT Technical Requirements
It is anticipated that the DBF Agreement will require the Developer, upon receiving a notice to proceed from GDOT, to perform all Project design and construction obligations [using 3D and 4D models prepared for execution, or as agreed upon by GDOT and set forth in the DBF Agreement,] and to cause the Project to be completed in accordance with certain standards and
89

specifications. The final RFP will contain programmatic and Project-specific technical specifications and requirements that will apply to all work performed on the Project. Projectspecific technical requirements will be developed for the final RFP with input from the Shortlisted Proposers.
The RFP may permit Shortlisted Proposers to propose, for GDOT consideration, [(i) alternative technical concepts, and (ii) exceptions and deviations from certain aspects of the standards and specifications.] The confidential alternative technical concept process, including any constraints or parameters on potential submissions, shall be set forth in the RFP. All requests for deviations shall follow the requirements set forth in the RFP. Respondents should note, however, that, because federal funds will be included in the final plan of finance, there may be restrictions on deviations from federally mandated design and construction standards.
2.8.1 Geotechnical Investigation Program GDOT is performing certain geotechnical investigation work regarding the Project. The Project Documents available to Respondents for review as provided in Section 1 includes geotechnical information collected by GDOT to date. Additional information obtained, including boring and core samples, will be made available to the Shortlisted Proposers for review. GDOT anticipates a process for allowing the Shortlisted Proposers an opportunity to self-perform certain geotechnical investigative work after the RFP is issued in order to assess the risk allocated to the Developer in the RFP.
90

2.8.2 Utility Investigation and Relocation
Various overhead and underground utilities along the Project, including those owned by GDOT, will be impacted by the construction improvements. GDOT has initiated coordination with all known utility agencies to determine their involvement, general existing utility locations, degree of impact, and estimated relocation costs. GDOT anticipates that the Developer will be responsible for performing or causing necessary utility relocations/adjustments to be performed in accordance with applicable standards and for the costs associated with utility relocations/adjustments, except to the extent the utilities are legally responsible for such costs. A description of the responsibility for unidentified and misidentified utilities (as between GDOT and the Developer) will be provided in the RFP. 2.8.3 Concept Design
GDOT expects the Developer to use pre-construction analysis software to evaluate and select alternative project scenarios. If specified in section 2.7, when the Developer is required to acquire any ROW, it must be initiated in the concept design phase (on completion of 20-50% Design). 3.2 Payment for Work Product 3.3 Pre-Qualification Requirements
GDOT will require each Lead Contractor and the Lead Engineering Firm for each Shortlisted Proposer to be pre-qualified with GDOT before the Proposal due date, as set forth in the RFP.
91

Satisfaction of such pre-qualification requirements will be a condition in the RFP for submitting a compliant and responsive Proposal. As applicable, other engineering firms for each Shortlisted Proposer must be pre-qualified prior to and during the term of the Design-Build period per the conditions of the DBF Agreement. GDOT anticipates the following area classes will be required to be prequalified:
1.______ 2._______ 3.________ 4. Collocation of the project team 5. Availability of software compatible with the scheduling platform of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement (if applicable) 6. Flash Tracking Experience or as approved by GDOT
92

REVISED TEMPLATE FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS This section provides recommendations for incorporating Flash Track Best Practices currently missing in the GODT RFP, and includes suggestions for additional statement inserts into the GDOT RFP Template (Georgia Department of Transportation Retrieved 2019). These recommended edits are highlighted in red.
TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT THROUGH A DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT USING THE FLASH TRACKING APPROACH
PROJECT NUMBER P.I. No.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RFP Issued:
Georgia Department of Transportation One Georgia Center
600 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308
93

1. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 Introduction
The Georgia Department of Transportation ("GDOT"), an agency of the State of Georgia ("State"), issued a Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") for the Project (as described in more detail in Section 1.3, the "Project") on _________. Next GDOT issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP"), dated [and subsequently amended], as the second step in the procurement process for the Project, pursuant to Section 32-2-81 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("Code"), Chapter 672-18 of the Rules of the Georgia Department of Transportation ("Rules"), and other applicable laws and guidelines.
The RFP solicits competitive detailed Proposals (as described in more detail in Section 1.5.1) to develop the Project by means of a Design-Build Agreement using the flash track approach (the "DB Agreement") between the successful Proposer and GDOT. Under such a DB Agreement, the Design-Build Team will be required to design and construct the Project during the contract period.
Following the release of the initial RFP, GDOT may opt to engage in a series of proprietary meetings and discussions with the Proposers, all in accordance with the procedures set forth in the RFP. In response to feedback and input received from the Proposers and other stakeholders, GDOT may opt to issue Addendums to the RFP. In the event that GDOT issues any Addendums to the RFP, the Addendums may supplement or replace the RFP in part or in whole.
94

Proposals will only be considered from those entities that are selected as the most qualified Proposers based on their Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") submitted in response to the RFQ. This set of Instructions to Proposers ("ITP") provides instructions to be followed by Proposers in their responses to the RFP. Proposals must comply with the ITP requirements.
Refer to Exhibit 1 of the Design-Build Agreement hereto for the meaning of various capitalized terms and acronyms used but not defined herein. Unless otherwise specified, references to Sections, Exhibits and Forms shall mean Sections of the ITP and Exhibits and Forms attached to the ITP. All times in this ITP are EST or EDT, as applicable.
1.2 RFP Documents
The RFP consists of the items listed below, and any other documents that may be issued by Addendum, as such documents may be amended and supplemented:
Instructions to Proposers (ITP) (including the attached Exhibits and Forms) DB Documents (including the DB Agreement) Reference Information Documents (RID).
Refer to Article 1.2 of the DB Agreement for a list of the DB Documents and their order of precedence. The RIDs are listed on Exhibit H hereto. The ITP and the RIDs are not contract documents and will not form a part of the DB Documents. GDOT does not make any representation or guarantee as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness of the RIDs. GDOT does
95

not take any responsibility for the RIDs, and Proposers are responsible for any conclusions they may draw from the RIDs. GDOT is making the RIDs available to Proposers for the sole purpose of providing information in the possession of GDOT, regardless of whether such information is accurate, complete, pertinent, or of any value. 1.3 General Project Description The Project is being [ADD PROJECT GOALS]. (If the Project will be constructed using the flash track approach, that fact should be mentioned in the description of the project goals.) Add Project Description. The Design-Build Team will be responsible for the design and construction of the Project during the contract period. As part of such construction work, Design-Build Team will be responsible for undertaking and completing certain utility adjustments pursuant to Article 7.5 of the DB Agreement and the Section 6 of the Technical Provisions.
96

EXHIBIT E EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING The maximum score for a Proposal will be 1,000 points. This will be split as % Price Proposal and % Technical Proposal. Breakdowns and calculations for the Price and Technical Proposal scoring are described below.

E.1 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria (Maximum Points):

E.1.1. Technical Proposal Scoring Formula

GDOT will score the technical proposals using the following formula Technical Proposal Score= Individual Section Technical Proposal Scores Where: Maximum Technical Proposal Score = 1000 (maximum total Proposal score) x %

E.1.2. Technical Proposal Evaluation Sections:

The following are the areas and maximums available points for each area that will be evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal Scoring.

Section

Maximum Score

Ability to use of Software compatible with the scheduling platform of PCC pavement, given the design, construction, and environmental factors.

97

Capacity to have a bridge fabrication facility near the project location. Consideration of innovative construction materials that accelerate construction. Ability to utilize integrated document management for tracking time-sensitive documents. Ability to consider 3D and 4D modeling of the execution sequence during detailed design. Total Score E.1.2.1 Schedule Evaluation Criteria (Maximum 40 Points) (a) Opening the weigh-in-motion system in an expedited manner is a GDOT goal for this project. (b) The likelihood that the Proposer will meet or complete within all milestone deadlines in Exhibit 9 of the DB Agreement. The DB Team allocates resources needed to meet or exceed the Project requirements and sets forth an aggressive but realistic time frame for the required completion of all design and construction work. The schedule shall include all GDOT submittal review periods as required in the Technical Provisions.
98

1.10 Status of environmental Documents
1.10.1 Project
The Environmental Documents, which include NEPA/GEPA and all required environmental area classes, are being pursued for the Project by GDOT in coordination with the concept design efforts. [PROVIDE STATUS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND ANY OTHER FEDERAL APPROVALS SUCH AS IMR, IJR.]
Further information regarding this process is available at the following website: [Provide url.]
If the Developer is required to acquire Environmental permits for the Project, the permitting process must be performed concomitantly with scope development.
1.11 Qualification of construction and Design Firms
Proposers shall ensure that the entities identified in Sections 1.11.1 and 1.11.2 have satisfied the pre-qualification requirements set forth in this Section 1.11. Additionally, before commencing performance of any Work, all firms must register to do business in the State. This can be accomplished by contacting the Georgia Secretary of State Corporations Division Office at (404) 656-2817 or by visiting their website: [Provide url.]
1.11.1 Required Pre-Qualification for Contractors.
99

The Lead Contractor shall be pre-qualified with GDOT prior to the Proposal Due Date. If the roadway work is not performed by the pre-qualified Lead Contractor, the entity performing the roadway work shall also be pre-qualified prior to initiating any Work. The pre-qualification process involves but is not limited to submitting (a) a completed contractor qualification form, (b) financial statements, and (c) a plan to collocate the team and dedicate a project command center. Further information regarding the pre-qualification process is available at the following website: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/Business/Prequalification
100

CONCLUSION This research created an appendix to the existing Design-Build Manual for reinforcing the implementation of Flash Track Best Practices in time-driven projects. It also proposed recommendations to further customize the RFQ and RFP templates for projects where time is of the essence. Additionally, the Flash Track Readiness Assessment Tool was deployed to measure the teams' readiness in successfully implementing Flash Track Best Practices in three GDOT projects, namely: I-85 Widening Project, SR 400EL Project, and I-16 & I-95 Project. The results of the assessment scores and reports highlighted the teams' strengths and weaknesses with respect to 83 Flash Track Best Practices, and provided them with recommendations for enhancing the readiness. Furthermore, this research provided input into the RFQ and RFP for the Houlihan Bridge to incorporate requirements for Flash Tracking.
This research recommends that GDOT would deploy the following documentations for future time-driven Design-Build projects: 1) Design-Build Manual Appendix for Flash Tracking (Chapter 6), 2) Revised Template for RFQ (Chapters 7 & 9), and 3) Revised Template for RFP (Chapters 8 & 10), and 4) Flash Track Readiness Assessment Toolkit, which was developed by the authors during the phase I of this research (Report# FHWA-GA-19-162).
101

REFERENCES Georgia Department of Transportation. 2014. I-285 & SR 400 Reconstruction Project- Request
for Qualifications P3-484-110314DBF. Georgia Department of Transportation. 2018. Design-Build Manual. Georgia Department of Transportation. 2021. Request for Qualifciation to Provide Design-Build
Services for SR 25 at Savannah & Middle River Bridges Replacement Project- RFQ 48402262021DB. Georgia Department of Transportation. 2021 Request for Proposals to Provide Design-Build Services for SR 25 at Savannah & Middle River Bridges Replacement Project- P.I. Nos. 0013741 & 0013742 Georgia Department of Transportation. Retrieved 2019. Request for Proposals to Design and Construct the Project through a Design-Build Agreement. Pishdad-Bozorgi, Pardis, and Jesus de la Garza. 2018. Flash Tracking for Accelerated Project Delivery. Georgia Department of Transportation.
102