International Construction Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (ICSC) (5th : 2015)

Expediting emergency construction procurements : case studies in success Gransberg, Douglas D.; Rueda-Benavides, Jorge A. Jun 30, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52660-Gransberg_D_et_al_ICSC15_094_Emergency_Procurement.pdf [ 342.86kB ]
52660-Gransberg_D_et_al_ICSC15_094_Emergency_Procurement_slides.pdf [ 373.19kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52660-1.0076475.json
JSON-LD: 52660-1.0076475-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52660-1.0076475-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52660-1.0076475-rdf.json
Turtle: 52660-1.0076475-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52660-1.0076475-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52660-1.0076475-source.json
Full Text
52660-1.0076475-fulltext.txt
Citation
52660-1.0076475.ris

Full Text

5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   EXPEDITING EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENTS: CASE STUDIES IN SUCCESS Douglas D. Gransberg1 and Jorge A. Rueda-Benavides1  1IDepartment of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, United States Abstract: While the law allows public transportation officials to do what it takes to resolve the emergency, they are expected to maintain an extremely careful balancing act between expeditiously resolving the crisis and abusing their authority to circumvent the routine full and open competition process using the emergency as justification. The ability to waive standard procedures comes with the requirement to use that authority both sparingly and wisely. This paper presents analysis case studies of expedited emergency projects from nine states that range from a $550,000 landslide repair to a $234 million interstate highway bridge replacement. The cases also cover emergency projects delivered by design-bid-build, construction manager/general contractor, design-build and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. The paper finds that the major factor for successful emergency procurement is for the owner to utilize procurement processes with which it is familiar. It also finds that owners need to allow as much competition as time and circumstances permit to reduce the probability of a substantive protest. Finally, it recommends anticipating an emergency and making advance preparations is the fasted way to react to an emergency and the surest method for avoiding protest. 1 INTRODUCTION “In both [US] federal and state law, the use of emergency procurement procedures allows for limited competition in selecting a contractor… however, this limitation must be carefully utilized and fully documented” (Perry and Hines 2007 italics added). Herein, lays the heart of the primary procurement dilemma for public officials attempting to expeditiously deliver the design and construction services necessary to resolve an infrastructure availability crisis. The law grants broad latitude regarding suspending statutory competition requirements in an the emergency situation, officials are also expected to the legal tightrope between expeditiously resolving the crisis and potentially abusing the authority to suspend full and open competition while using the emergency as justification. Emergency powers come with the requirement to use that authority both sparingly and wisely throughout the crisis. The New Mexico Department of Transportation (DOT) emergency procedures manual (2007) puts it this way: “Lack of planning does not constitute an emergency.” Another author evaluating the difficulties of emergency procurement puts it this way: “Perhaps a good rule of thumb is, when in doubt, bid it out.” (Houston 2011). The primary research objective was to identify trends in successful emergency construction project delivery via the analysis of case study projects. Secondarily, the research sought to determine the impact of limiting competition during emergency procurements and identify effective practices for providing as much competition as practical that can be replicated in future emergencies. 094-1 2 BACKGROUND Many of the studies on the deteriorating condition of the North American transportation system find that public agencies must deliver critical infrastructure projects “better, faster, cheaper” (Atzei et al. 1999; Richmond et al. 2006). However, when an emergency occurs and removes an essential piece of the infrastructure such as a major bridge, the alternatives for optimizing the procurement process narrow to the point where only one of the three previous components remain, and that one is time, i.e. “faster.” While “better” (quality) and “cheaper” (cost) are still of concern, they take a lesser priority until service is restored. Then, the public attention often switches to an analysis of value for money from a retrospective viewpoint. The attention often criticizes the procedures used by the agency to restore service as quickly as possible. The result is that public agencies have expended much time and money to develop emergency management plans supported by a preapproved set of expedited procurement procedures.  2.1 Spectrum of Emergencies The pressing need to expedite the delivery of an emergency project normally arises unexpectedly, and the magnitude of the response can range from very little to a declaration of a national disaster. When the emergency is large enough to make national news like Hurricane Sandy on the US east coast or the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minnesota or the 2013 ice storm in Ontario, public officials must implement expedited procurement procedures to restore vital network links with the media scrutinizing their work every night on the evening news. While high profile emergency projects are well-known, the more typical case is a local emergency caused by flashing flooding washing out a culvert on a rural road or a freeway overpass damaged and closed from a traffic accident. These mundane local emergencies sometimes go unmentioned in the news, but are just as critical to drivers traveling through the locality and require the agency to exercise just as much speed to restore service and remove threats to life and property. The difference in the two situations can be the construction industry’s willingness to accept a change in customary rules ensuring free and open competition for construction projects. In major disasters, the publicity encourages a “do whatever it takes” attitude due to the emotions surrounding the event that are rarely present in the localized incidents. Nonetheless, agencies have found ways to successfully resolve both large and small emergency disruptions to network service. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to evaluate the collective experience with expedited procurement procedures to deliver both design and construction services for emergency highway projects. 2.2 Legal Constraints on Emergency Procurements Based on local statutes, most public agencies are given the power to take whatever action is determined necessary to insure health, safety and welfare of the community in an emergency. For example the Florida statutes (2010) state: “The political subdivision has the power and authority to waive the procedures and formalities otherwise required of the political subdivision by law pertaining to: performance of public work and taking whatever prudent action is necessary to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community; entering into contracts [and] incurring obligations...” This verbiage applies to awarding emergency highway contracts by the Florida DOT. Most, if not all, US state codes provide similar authority to ignore routine statutory competition constraints in an emergency where the time it takes to follow the routine procurement process would or could exacerbate the impact to the health and safety of the community.  The United States Code (2000) authorizes public agencies to provisionally suspend its construction bidding regulations for contracts awarded for emergency situations. Normally, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) requires consultant contracts to be awarded on a competitively negotiated basis to the best qualified offeror based on the Brooks Act (23 CFR §172.5a3) and contracts for construction to be awarded on the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to be approved for federal funds. Additionally, roads designated as eligible for federal-aid are also eligible for federal funds administered by FHWA. Title 23 USC §125 authorizes emergency relief (ER) funding for the “repair or reconstruction of highways, roads, and trails, … that the Secretary finds have suffered serious damage as a result of— (1) natural disaster over a wide area, such as by a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, severe storm, or landslide; or (2) catastrophic failure from any external cause.”  094-2 Further complicating the mobilization of assets to cope with an emergency event is the requirement for gain approval from and coordinate with resource agencies to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which issues the implementation guidance for Federal NEPA actions, states: “Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council [on Environmental Quality] about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review.” (Perry and Hines 2007). Once the immediate threat to “the health, safety, and welfare of the community” has been resolved by interim emergency repairs, the agency must shift to conventional contracting procedures to award any remaining work (UDOT 2011). 3 METHODOLOGY The study utilized two primary research instruments: literature review, including a content analysis of agency emergency management documents, and formal case studies of a cross-section of emergency projects. An effort was made in the review of relevant literature to not only seek the latest information but also historical information so that any change over time in emergency procurement practices could be assessed with the current state-of-the-practice. The content analysis of DOT emergency procedure documents from 38 states using a protocol proposed by Neuendorf (2002) constituted the second source of information. Both these instruments supported the third line of independent information: the case studies. 3.1 Case Study Protocol The literature review and content analysis drove the case study data collection and the sought to identify projects from across the spectrum of emergency transportation projects with procurement aspects of specific interest to the study. The final group of case study projects highlights a specific emergency procurement issue that was address using expedited procurement procedures for emergency project delivery. The case studies were collected using a methodology detailed by Yin (2004).  Yin’s approach requires that case study data be collected in conjunction with the comprehensive review of the literature. Thus, it allows the researcher to not only maintain a high level of technical rigor in the research but also follow Yin’s three principles in the process of research data collection:  1).use of multiple sources; 2). creation of a database, and 3). maintenance of a chain of evidence (Yin 2004).  Thus, information gleaned from the case studies can be combined with information collected in the literature review to validate case study conclusions.    3.2 Case Study Selection The primary objective in this paper is to analyze the value of bringing the contractor into the design process. Therefore, the following criteria for the final set of case study projects were applied: • “Range of project delivery methods – design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager/general contractor (CMGC), design-build (DB), and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ). • Range of project types – roads and bridges • Range of project size – typical small project to mega-project • Range of project complexity – simple to highly complex • Range of project location – regionally dispersed • Range of solicitation type – Invitation for Bids (IFB) to sole source • Range of payment provisions – lump sum (LS) to time and materials • Use of incentive/disincentive (I/D) and bonus provisions” (Gransberg and Loulakis 2012)  Case Study Demographics 094-3 The study identified nine emergency procurement projects worth more than $290 million in nine states that represent the cross-section of variations on project types, sizes, and project delivery methods. Table 1 is a summary of the case study projects that were sampled for this research.  One can see that the projects span from coast to coast and north to south. The case study projects represent the use of four different project delivery methods including a hybrid DBB project with a nested DB provision. The project types spanned the spectrum from the replacement of a washed out culvert to an emergency replacement of an eight lane interstate highway bridge over the Mississippi River. Table 1: Emergency Procurement Case Study Projects. (adapted from Gransberg and Loulakis 2012). State (Agency acronym) Case Study Project (Value) Construction Type  Expedited Procurement Procedure Project Delivery Method Payment Provision  California (Caltrans)  I-580/880 MacArthur Maze Replacement ($5.9 million) Overpass bridge replacement after truck struck pier and burned Invitation-only bids from 9 experienced contractors. DBB UP with time incentive  Florida (FDOT)  I-10 Escambia Bay Bridge Repair ($26.4 million) Repair interstate bridge damaged in hurricane Natural Disaster Emergency Contract - Invitation-only bids from 4 contractors. DB LS with time incentive  Maine (MDOT) Route 27 Bridge Replacement ($2.89 million) Replace two bridges destroyed by flooding Use of CMGC by a DOT without routine CMGC authority. CMGC UP  Minnesota (MnDOT) I-35W Bridge Replacement ($234 million-DB contract only) Replace collapsed interstate bridge Abbreviated DB procurement for mega-project and protest of award. DB LS + time incentive & No Excuse Bonus Missouri (MoDOT) I-270 – St. Louis County Slide Repair ($550,000) Emergency land slide remediation on interstate highway Use of a “nested” DB contract provision in a DBB contract DBB w/DB Time & Materials  Montana (MDT)  US -2 Rockfall Mitigation ($3.0 million) Rockfall mitigation features Use of a DB unit price provision without geotechnical investigation. DB LS with UP items  New York State (NYSDOT) 981G Ramapo River Bridge Replacement ($1.4 million) Bridge replacement  Use of Statewide Emergency Bridge IDIQ Contract IDIQ Time & Materials  Oklahoma  (ODOT) I-35 – Culvert Repair ($715,000) Replace major box culvert washed out by flooding Sole source cost plus contract for temporary shoring while expedited IFB developed DBB UP with hourly I/D Utah  (UDOT)  SR-14 Landslide Repair ($15 million) Repair extensive landslide damage  Use of CMGC to expedite construction via 3 work packages CMGC GMP  *LS = Lump sum; GMP = Guaranteed maximum price; UP = Unit price; I/D = Incentive/disincentive clause 094-4 4 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS Due to the page limitations for this paper, the salient details of the case studies have been synopsized in Table 2 to permit the reader the ability to easily compare any specific project against all other projects. The analysis of the case study projects shown in Tables 1 and 2 will focus on the comparison of the PDM rationale, procurement, permits, incentives, and tools used to expedite the emergency procurements. These elements are the factors that constitute the elements that must be addressed to allow the agency to expedite the procurement of an urgent or emergency project. Based on the protocol detailed in Section 3, a set of standardized categories was established for the procurement rationale information and the tools used to expedite the procurements. This permits the direct comparison of case study projects and the identification and classification of trends during cross-case analysis.  Finally, it should be noted that three of the nine cases involve procurements that anticipated the emergency and put resources in place contractually to be able to rapidly react to an emergency if it occurred or to mitigate the risk that the emergency would be actualized. As can be seen in Table 2’s timeline column, this proactive approach not only provides the ability to immediately react without the need to process environmental permits or acquire right of way, but it also eliminates the risk that the award of the emergency contract will be protested on the grounds that the agency abrogated its responsibility to maintain free and open competition in all procurements. Table 2: Case Study Project Details Agency Scope PDM Choice Rational – Procurement Procedures – Permits  Incentive Details Expedited Procurement Tools  Time to Completion Caltrans Replace I-580 overpass and  I-880 deck - DBB with I/D only authorized PDM - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Emergency permit waiver  $200K/day capped at $5 million - Limited competition - Standing list  - Incentivize critical success factors Award: Demo – 1 day New – 2 days Complete:  27 days FDOT Temporary bridge - Need single source of design and construction - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Used expedited award with hand-written scope - Emergency permit waiver $250K/day capped at $3 million - Limited competition - Abbreviated contract docs - Co-locate design on site - Use of available materials - Contractor design involvement - Incentivize critical success factors Award: 1 day Complete:  91 days MDOT 2 new bridges - Need contractor input to design - Invitation only prequalified contractors – negotiated GMP - Emergency permit waiver None - Limited competition - Standing list  - Use of available materials - Contractor design involvement Award: 2 days Complete:  82 days MnDOT Replace I-35W bridge - Extensive agency DB experience; needed sophisticated contractor - Minimized info req’d in proposals;  - Categorical exclusion for 10 req’d permits $7 million & $2 million/10 day period early capped at $20 million - Confidential ATCs -Confidential one-on-one meetings - Co-locate design on site - Contractor design involvement - Incentivize critical success factors - Abbreviated contract Award: 50 days Complete:  339 days 094-5 Agency Scope PDM Choice Rational – Procurement Procedures – Permits  Incentive Details Expedited Procurement Tools  Time to Completion docs MoDOT I-270 landslide repair - DBB project known to be in high land-slide zone. - Nested DB provision with specialty contractor to repair slide if req’d - No permits required None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement Award: none Complete:  120 days MDT US-2 rockfall mitigation - Need single source of design and construction - Nested UP provision in LS contract  - Contractor pulled permits None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement - Confidential ATCs -Confidential one-on-one meetings Award: 87 days Complete:  157 days NYSDOT Replace 981G bridge  - Need stand-by contractor - IDIQ procured before emergency  - Emergency permit waiver None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement Award: none Complete:  57 days ODOT I-35 Culvert Repair - DBB with I/D only authorized PDM - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Emergency permit waiver $16K/day capped at $100K - Limited competition - Standing list  - Use of available materials - Incentivize critical success factors Award: 1 day Complete:  15 days UDOT SR-14 landslide repair - Need contractor input to design - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Minimized info req’d in proposals; - Contractor pulled permits None - Abbreviated proposal docs - Contractor design involvement Award: 38 days Complete:  360 days 4.1 Case Study Procurement Analysis Table 2 shows that the need to have the construction contractor’s input during design drives the selection of a project delivery method for an emergency project. Agencies favor CMGC and DB since these methods involve the contractor making substantive input to the design process and purport to improve constructability and construction phasing (West et al. 2012). Caltrans and ODOT did not have the statutory authority to use DB or CMGC, and therefore, both agencies turned to adding large incentives to their DBB contracts as a means of encouraging the contractor to focus on achieving an aggressive schedule (Bai et al. 2006). Maine had authority to use DB but wanted to use in-house design assets, which is functionally impossible in a DB contract. Thus, the agency sought emergency authority to use CMGC to replace the Route 27 bridges (Pulver 2012). New York’s emergency  bridge replacement IDIQ was in place when Hurricane Irene washed out the bridges over the Ramapo River (NYSDOT 2007) and as such was able to marry up in-house design assets with the IDIQ contractor that delivered the projects in exactly the same fashion as a typical CMGC project with the contractor identifying immediately available structural steel sections around which the NYSDOT engineers designed (Rueda and Gransberg 2014). This leads to the conclusion that early contractor design involvement is key to not only achieving an expedited delivery but it also facilitates the schedule by designing a project that is highly constructable. Table 2 also shows that when an agency is unable to obtain an emergency waiver of environmental permitting requirements, the contractor can be given the responsibility for obtaining the permits based on its actual means and methods. The Montana DOT assigned the permit responsibility to its contractor 094-6 because the permits would be specific to the means and methods that would be used in the field (MDT 2011). The Utah DOT shared the permitting responsibility with its contractor because of the need to build a temporary access road as quickly as possible to provide egress for the residents that were trapped by the landslide in the valley. A Stream Alteration Permit wasrequired to restore the bed and banks of the creek that is located below the road as well as permits from the county, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources. Lastly coordination was required with the local Native American tribe. To quantify the risk of delay due to permitting, UDOT had the contractor develop two schedules, naming them the “Fast Track” and “Slow Track” permitting packages. These planning packages included right-of-way, environmental documents, and the contractor’s site grading package, which is dependent on both. The Slow Track schedule was 60 days and the Fast Track schedule is 25 days. Permits were received in time to allow preliminary construction to start and accomplish the removal of excess material and to build the temporary access road (UDOT 2011). Five of the case study projects limited competition to a standing list of prequalified contractors. While still limiting free and open competition, this approach provides more competition than a sole source award and essentially give all potential contractors the chance to qualify for inclusion on the prequalified list before the emergency. Thus, the risk of a protest of award based on restricting competition is reduced and the agency is encouraging as much competition as practical given the urgency of the emergency procurement. Lastly, every case study project utilized some form of altered or streamlined version of procurement procedures to advertise, evaluate and award the contract. One end of the spectrum was the Florida project that was awarded using FDOT’s standard form modified with seven pages of hand-written “assumptions and clarifications” (Maxey 2006). Minnesota’s process reduced the size of the DB proposal for $240 million bridge project to a mere 20 pages by holding confidential one-on-one conferences to clarify issues in the solicitation and entertain alternative technical concepts (Heitpas 2008). Montana modified its routine lump sum DB contract by adding a unit price item as a means of sharing the geotechnical risk with its design-builder.  4.2 Case Study Incentives Analysis A recent Strategic Highway Research 2 study found that on complex projects the agency should first identify critical success factors and then incentivize those aspects of project delivery that contribute to success (Gransberg et al. 2013). Table 2 shows that to be the case in only four of the nine projects included monetary incentives. To put this in perspective, three of the cases, Missouri, Montana and New York, were contracts awarded before the emergency occurred and therefore, the contracts were formed without the urgency inherent to contracts procured after an emergency event, reducing the need for incentives and quite frankly, making large incentives more difficult to justify. In these cases, the incentive is in winning the contract. Maine and Utah were other two cases without incentives and both were delivered using CMGC. In CMGC, the contractor is actively involved in forming the final design solution (West et al. 2012) and in both cases, the agency created an incentive for expeditious completion in its contractor selection scheme during procurement. Previous project delivery methods research found that contractors view the possibility of getting future work by satisfactorily completing a CMGC project as the most valuable incentive available in this method, or as stated by one author: “By far the most important incentive that an owner has is the promise of repeat work” (Thomsen 2006). Thus, one can infer that the agency can use the benefits inherent with winning new work as the incentive if it anticipates the emergency, and it can leverage the same incentive after the emergency by selecting CMGC project delivery. 4.3 Case Study Tools Analysis Gray and Larson (2008) describe project management as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” A recent study defines a procurement tool as “those things that project management practitioners use to ‘do the job’ to execute a process.” (Besner and Hobbs 2008). Thus, the term as used in this paper refers to a specific technique or approach used to expedite the procurement of either design and construction services on an urgent or emergency 094-7 basis. Table 3 consolidates the expedited procurement tools show in Table 2.  One can see that involving the construction contractor in the design process is the most frequently used tool followed by the use of limited competition and incentives. Table 3: Case Study Expedited Procurement Tools Expedited Procurement Tool Number of Agencies Remarks Contractor design involvement 6 None Limited competition 4 Minnesota effectively limited competition by short-listing known entities Incentivize critical success factors 4 None Anticipated emergency with special provision 3 None Standing list of prequalified contractors 3 None Abbreviated contract documents 3 All cases altered their routine process in some fashion. Use of immediately available materials 3 None Co-locate design team on project site 2 None Confidential Alternative Technical Concepts 2 None Confidential one-on-one meetings 2 None  The Utah DOT found that design documents developed in nonemergency CMGC contracts were released for construction much earlier due to contractor involvement (Alder 2007). Additionally, as the contractor is already under contract, the designer no longer needs to produce a full set of biddable construction documents. The agency can direct it to develop its design documents on a feature by feature basis at a point in time where the contractor declares there is sufficient detail for it to release for the trade subcontract work package bids (Alder 2007; West et al. 2012).  A previous study on early contractor design involvement (ECDI) found that it yields four specific benefits useful in an emergency procurement: 1. “ECDI permits the DOT to gain access to information regarding available construction means, methods, and materials. This permits the design to be tailored to the immediate need 2. ECDI adds a reality check to the design process via the designer getting immediate feedback on the consequences of design decisions from the entity that is tasked to construct the project. This results in a more constructable project. 3. The use of time-based incentives in emergency projects focuses the contractor on executing very aggressive schedule and to devote as much effort as possible to ECDI as a means to get design packages released for construction in a timely manner. 4. While ECDI does not transfer the design liability, it does produce a higher quality set of design documents with a lower probability of the need for delay due to changes for design errors and omissions.” (Gransberg 2013).  Both Table 3 and the subsequent discussion lead one to the conclusion that the involving the construction contractor in the design process is the most effective procurement tool to expedite the completion of emergency project. Additionally, limiting competition reduces the procurement period to as little as one day and if limited to a standing list of prequalified contractors can reduce the risk of award protest. Finally, emergency projects should be recognized as inherently complex and as such, the case studies show that 094-8 aligning thoughtfully developed incentives with critical project success factors also facilitate the expedited completion of the project.  5 CONCLUSIONS  Three major conclusions are reached in this study. The first is the most obvious. The best way to expedite the reaction to an emergency is to anticipate it. The study found two approaches to ensuring that the necessary resources were available to react to an unforeseen event: Missouri’s nested DB provision and NYSDOT’s IDIQ for emergency bridge replacement. It also identified Montana’s approach to nesting a unit price provision inside a lump sum DB contract to provide a means to mitigate the risk to the infrastructure from rock slides. In each case, actions were taken in advance of an emergency in a full and open competition environment and as such did not require emergency waiver of competition statutes. Secondly, the study finds that selecting a project delivery method like CMGC, DB, or IDIQ which is structured to permit the construction contractor to make substantive input to the emergency project’s design was the most used expedited procurement tool among the case study agencies. The lesson learned here is that the separation of designer and contractor that exists in traditional DBB construction contracts, actually works against the expeditious resolution of an emergency loss of service. Bring the contractor into the emergency project design process, allows the repair and restoration of service to be tailored to that particular contractor’s preferred means and methods and enhances the constructability of the final design solution. Lastly, maintaining a standing list of prequalified contractors willing to bid on an emergency basis permits the agency to provide as much competition as possible while avoiding the delays associated with running a full open competition solicitation. This conclusion speaks to the political environment rather than the technical aspects of emergency procurements. As with the first conclusion, the standing list acts as an insulator against delays due to protest of award founded on the idea that competition statutes were violated. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis Series (Synthesis 43-11) for it support for this research. References Alder, R. 200. UDOT Construction Manager General Contract (CMGC) Annual Report. Utah Department of Transportation Project Development Group, Engineering Services and Bridge Design Section, Salt Lake City, Utah: 39. Atzei, A. Groepper, P.  Novara, M. and Pseiner, K. 1999. Innovations for Competitiveness: European Views on ‘Better-Faster-Cheaper’,” Acta Astronautica, 44(7-12): 745-754. Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. 2008. Project Management Practice, Generic or Contextual: A Reality Check. Project Management Journal, 39(1): 16-33. Florida State Government, Florida Senate. Ch. 252.38. 2010. Emergency Management Powers of Political Subdivisions, Tallahassee, Florida. Retrieved from: http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0200-0299/0252/Sections/0252.38.html. [March 14, 2014]. Gransberg D.D. and Loulakis, M.C.. 2012. Expedited Procurement Procedures for Emergency Construction Services, Synthesis 438, Transportation Research Board, National Academies, Washington, D.C: 118pp. Gransberg, D.D., Shane, J.S. Strong, K.  and Lopez del Puerto, C. 2013. Project Complexity Mapping in Five Dimensions for Complex Transport Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 29(4): 316-326. 094-9 Gransberg, D.D., 2013. Case Studies of Early Contractor Design Involvement to Expedite the Delivery of Emergency Highway Projects. Transportation Research Record No. 2347, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies: 19-26. Gray, C. and Larson, E.  2008. Project Management: The Managerial Process, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, New York. Hietpas, J. 2008. I-35W St. Anthony Falls Bridge: Planning the Replacement. Aspire: 24-27. Houston, N. 2011. Emergency Procurement – When is an Emergency Really an Emergency? Coates’ Canons: NC Local Government Law Blog, Retrieved from: http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ localgovt/?p=4717 [April 12, 2014]. Maxey, D. 2006. Emergency Repair of the I-10 Bridge Over Escambia Bay. FICE/FDOT Design Conference, Orlando, Florida: 43. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) 2011. Design-Build Request for Proposal US 2 – Rockfall Mitigation, Flathead County, Project # SFCN 1-2(169)154, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana: 39. New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT). 2007. New Mexico Department of Transportation Internal Procedures Manual, Section L – Emergency Purchase, NMDOT, Santa Fe, New Mexico: 124. Neuendorf, K.A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: 300. Perry, J.L. and Hines, M.L. 2007. Emergency Contracting: Flexibilities in Contracting Procedures During An Emergency, NCHRP Legal Research Digest No. 49. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C: 3-25. Pulver, B. 2012. Maine DOT Accelerated CMGC. FHWA 2012 CMGC Peer Exchange, Boston, Massachusetts: 35. Richmond, D., Cown, J.  Ball, D.  and Rolland, J.M.  2006. Private Sector Investments in Public Infrastructure. Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships:14.  Rueda-Benavides, J.A. and Gransberg, D.D. 2014. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contracting: A Case Study Analysis. Transportation Research Record, No. 2408, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies: 17-25. Thomsen, C. 2006. “Project Delivery Processes. Parsons Corporation, Retrieved from: http://www.3di.com/rnd/Files/Essays/Project%20Delivery%20Strategy.pdf [accessed Nov. 22, 2014]. United States Code (USC), 2000. Title 23 USC- Highways, As Amended Through Public Law 106-347: 213.  Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 2011. Emergency Contracting/Procurement Procedure, UDOT Salt Lake City, Utah: 1-34. West, N.J.N., Gransberg, D.D. and McMinimee, J. 2012 . Effective Tools for Projects Delivered Using the Construction Manager/General Contractor. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies: 32-42. Yin, R. 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, New York: 254.  094-10  5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   EXPEDITING EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENTS: CASE STUDIES IN SUCCESS Douglas D. Gransberg1 and Jorge A. Rueda-Benavides1  1IDepartment of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, United States Abstract: While the law allows public transportation officials to do what it takes to resolve the emergency, they are expected to maintain an extremely careful balancing act between expeditiously resolving the crisis and abusing their authority to circumvent the routine full and open competition process using the emergency as justification. The ability to waive standard procedures comes with the requirement to use that authority both sparingly and wisely. This paper presents analysis case studies of expedited emergency projects from nine states that range from a $550,000 landslide repair to a $234 million interstate highway bridge replacement. The cases also cover emergency projects delivered by design-bid-build, construction manager/general contractor, design-build and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. The paper finds that the major factor for successful emergency procurement is for the owner to utilize procurement processes with which it is familiar. It also finds that owners need to allow as much competition as time and circumstances permit to reduce the probability of a substantive protest. Finally, it recommends anticipating an emergency and making advance preparations is the fasted way to react to an emergency and the surest method for avoiding protest. 1 INTRODUCTION “In both [US] federal and state law, the use of emergency procurement procedures allows for limited competition in selecting a contractor… however, this limitation must be carefully utilized and fully documented” (Perry and Hines 2007 italics added). Herein, lays the heart of the primary procurement dilemma for public officials attempting to expeditiously deliver the design and construction services necessary to resolve an infrastructure availability crisis. The law grants broad latitude regarding suspending statutory competition requirements in an the emergency situation, officials are also expected to the legal tightrope between expeditiously resolving the crisis and potentially abusing the authority to suspend full and open competition while using the emergency as justification. Emergency powers come with the requirement to use that authority both sparingly and wisely throughout the crisis. The New Mexico Department of Transportation (DOT) emergency procedures manual (2007) puts it this way: “Lack of planning does not constitute an emergency.” Another author evaluating the difficulties of emergency procurement puts it this way: “Perhaps a good rule of thumb is, when in doubt, bid it out.” (Houston 2011). The primary research objective was to identify trends in successful emergency construction project delivery via the analysis of case study projects. Secondarily, the research sought to determine the impact of limiting competition during emergency procurements and identify effective practices for providing as much competition as practical that can be replicated in future emergencies. 094-1 2 BACKGROUND Many of the studies on the deteriorating condition of the North American transportation system find that public agencies must deliver critical infrastructure projects “better, faster, cheaper” (Atzei et al. 1999; Richmond et al. 2006). However, when an emergency occurs and removes an essential piece of the infrastructure such as a major bridge, the alternatives for optimizing the procurement process narrow to the point where only one of the three previous components remain, and that one is time, i.e. “faster.” While “better” (quality) and “cheaper” (cost) are still of concern, they take a lesser priority until service is restored. Then, the public attention often switches to an analysis of value for money from a retrospective viewpoint. The attention often criticizes the procedures used by the agency to restore service as quickly as possible. The result is that public agencies have expended much time and money to develop emergency management plans supported by a preapproved set of expedited procurement procedures.  2.1 Spectrum of Emergencies The pressing need to expedite the delivery of an emergency project normally arises unexpectedly, and the magnitude of the response can range from very little to a declaration of a national disaster. When the emergency is large enough to make national news like Hurricane Sandy on the US east coast or the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minnesota or the 2013 ice storm in Ontario, public officials must implement expedited procurement procedures to restore vital network links with the media scrutinizing their work every night on the evening news. While high profile emergency projects are well-known, the more typical case is a local emergency caused by flashing flooding washing out a culvert on a rural road or a freeway overpass damaged and closed from a traffic accident. These mundane local emergencies sometimes go unmentioned in the news, but are just as critical to drivers traveling through the locality and require the agency to exercise just as much speed to restore service and remove threats to life and property. The difference in the two situations can be the construction industry’s willingness to accept a change in customary rules ensuring free and open competition for construction projects. In major disasters, the publicity encourages a “do whatever it takes” attitude due to the emotions surrounding the event that are rarely present in the localized incidents. Nonetheless, agencies have found ways to successfully resolve both large and small emergency disruptions to network service. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to evaluate the collective experience with expedited procurement procedures to deliver both design and construction services for emergency highway projects. 2.2 Legal Constraints on Emergency Procurements Based on local statutes, most public agencies are given the power to take whatever action is determined necessary to insure health, safety and welfare of the community in an emergency. For example the Florida statutes (2010) state: “The political subdivision has the power and authority to waive the procedures and formalities otherwise required of the political subdivision by law pertaining to: performance of public work and taking whatever prudent action is necessary to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community; entering into contracts [and] incurring obligations...” This verbiage applies to awarding emergency highway contracts by the Florida DOT. Most, if not all, US state codes provide similar authority to ignore routine statutory competition constraints in an emergency where the time it takes to follow the routine procurement process would or could exacerbate the impact to the health and safety of the community.  The United States Code (2000) authorizes public agencies to provisionally suspend its construction bidding regulations for contracts awarded for emergency situations. Normally, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) requires consultant contracts to be awarded on a competitively negotiated basis to the best qualified offeror based on the Brooks Act (23 CFR §172.5a3) and contracts for construction to be awarded on the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to be approved for federal funds. Additionally, roads designated as eligible for federal-aid are also eligible for federal funds administered by FHWA. Title 23 USC §125 authorizes emergency relief (ER) funding for the “repair or reconstruction of highways, roads, and trails, … that the Secretary finds have suffered serious damage as a result of— (1) natural disaster over a wide area, such as by a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, severe storm, or landslide; or (2) catastrophic failure from any external cause.”  094-2 Further complicating the mobilization of assets to cope with an emergency event is the requirement for gain approval from and coordinate with resource agencies to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which issues the implementation guidance for Federal NEPA actions, states: “Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council [on Environmental Quality] about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review.” (Perry and Hines 2007). Once the immediate threat to “the health, safety, and welfare of the community” has been resolved by interim emergency repairs, the agency must shift to conventional contracting procedures to award any remaining work (UDOT 2011). 3 METHODOLOGY The study utilized two primary research instruments: literature review, including a content analysis of agency emergency management documents, and formal case studies of a cross-section of emergency projects. An effort was made in the review of relevant literature to not only seek the latest information but also historical information so that any change over time in emergency procurement practices could be assessed with the current state-of-the-practice. The content analysis of DOT emergency procedure documents from 38 states using a protocol proposed by Neuendorf (2002) constituted the second source of information. Both these instruments supported the third line of independent information: the case studies. 3.1 Case Study Protocol The literature review and content analysis drove the case study data collection and the sought to identify projects from across the spectrum of emergency transportation projects with procurement aspects of specific interest to the study. The final group of case study projects highlights a specific emergency procurement issue that was address using expedited procurement procedures for emergency project delivery. The case studies were collected using a methodology detailed by Yin (2004).  Yin’s approach requires that case study data be collected in conjunction with the comprehensive review of the literature. Thus, it allows the researcher to not only maintain a high level of technical rigor in the research but also follow Yin’s three principles in the process of research data collection:  1).use of multiple sources; 2). creation of a database, and 3). maintenance of a chain of evidence (Yin 2004).  Thus, information gleaned from the case studies can be combined with information collected in the literature review to validate case study conclusions.    3.2 Case Study Selection The primary objective in this paper is to analyze the value of bringing the contractor into the design process. Therefore, the following criteria for the final set of case study projects were applied: • “Range of project delivery methods – design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager/general contractor (CMGC), design-build (DB), and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ). • Range of project types – roads and bridges • Range of project size – typical small project to mega-project • Range of project complexity – simple to highly complex • Range of project location – regionally dispersed • Range of solicitation type – Invitation for Bids (IFB) to sole source • Range of payment provisions – lump sum (LS) to time and materials • Use of incentive/disincentive (I/D) and bonus provisions” (Gransberg and Loulakis 2012)  Case Study Demographics 094-3 The study identified nine emergency procurement projects worth more than $290 million in nine states that represent the cross-section of variations on project types, sizes, and project delivery methods. Table 1 is a summary of the case study projects that were sampled for this research.  One can see that the projects span from coast to coast and north to south. The case study projects represent the use of four different project delivery methods including a hybrid DBB project with a nested DB provision. The project types spanned the spectrum from the replacement of a washed out culvert to an emergency replacement of an eight lane interstate highway bridge over the Mississippi River. Table 1: Emergency Procurement Case Study Projects. (adapted from Gransberg and Loulakis 2012). State (Agency acronym) Case Study Project (Value) Construction Type  Expedited Procurement Procedure Project Delivery Method Payment Provision  California (Caltrans)  I-580/880 MacArthur Maze Replacement ($5.9 million) Overpass bridge replacement after truck struck pier and burned Invitation-only bids from 9 experienced contractors. DBB UP with time incentive  Florida (FDOT)  I-10 Escambia Bay Bridge Repair ($26.4 million) Repair interstate bridge damaged in hurricane Natural Disaster Emergency Contract - Invitation-only bids from 4 contractors. DB LS with time incentive  Maine (MDOT) Route 27 Bridge Replacement ($2.89 million) Replace two bridges destroyed by flooding Use of CMGC by a DOT without routine CMGC authority. CMGC UP  Minnesota (MnDOT) I-35W Bridge Replacement ($234 million-DB contract only) Replace collapsed interstate bridge Abbreviated DB procurement for mega-project and protest of award. DB LS + time incentive & No Excuse Bonus Missouri (MoDOT) I-270 – St. Louis County Slide Repair ($550,000) Emergency land slide remediation on interstate highway Use of a “nested” DB contract provision in a DBB contract DBB w/DB Time & Materials  Montana (MDT)  US -2 Rockfall Mitigation ($3.0 million) Rockfall mitigation features Use of a DB unit price provision without geotechnical investigation. DB LS with UP items  New York State (NYSDOT) 981G Ramapo River Bridge Replacement ($1.4 million) Bridge replacement  Use of Statewide Emergency Bridge IDIQ Contract IDIQ Time & Materials  Oklahoma  (ODOT) I-35 – Culvert Repair ($715,000) Replace major box culvert washed out by flooding Sole source cost plus contract for temporary shoring while expedited IFB developed DBB UP with hourly I/D Utah  (UDOT)  SR-14 Landslide Repair ($15 million) Repair extensive landslide damage  Use of CMGC to expedite construction via 3 work packages CMGC GMP  *LS = Lump sum; GMP = Guaranteed maximum price; UP = Unit price; I/D = Incentive/disincentive clause 094-4 4 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS Due to the page limitations for this paper, the salient details of the case studies have been synopsized in Table 2 to permit the reader the ability to easily compare any specific project against all other projects. The analysis of the case study projects shown in Tables 1 and 2 will focus on the comparison of the PDM rationale, procurement, permits, incentives, and tools used to expedite the emergency procurements. These elements are the factors that constitute the elements that must be addressed to allow the agency to expedite the procurement of an urgent or emergency project. Based on the protocol detailed in Section 3, a set of standardized categories was established for the procurement rationale information and the tools used to expedite the procurements. This permits the direct comparison of case study projects and the identification and classification of trends during cross-case analysis.  Finally, it should be noted that three of the nine cases involve procurements that anticipated the emergency and put resources in place contractually to be able to rapidly react to an emergency if it occurred or to mitigate the risk that the emergency would be actualized. As can be seen in Table 2’s timeline column, this proactive approach not only provides the ability to immediately react without the need to process environmental permits or acquire right of way, but it also eliminates the risk that the award of the emergency contract will be protested on the grounds that the agency abrogated its responsibility to maintain free and open competition in all procurements. Table 2: Case Study Project Details Agency Scope PDM Choice Rational – Procurement Procedures – Permits  Incentive Details Expedited Procurement Tools  Time to Completion Caltrans Replace I-580 overpass and  I-880 deck - DBB with I/D only authorized PDM - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Emergency permit waiver  $200K/day capped at $5 million - Limited competition - Standing list  - Incentivize critical success factors Award: Demo – 1 day New – 2 days Complete:  27 days FDOT Temporary bridge - Need single source of design and construction - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Used expedited award with hand-written scope - Emergency permit waiver $250K/day capped at $3 million - Limited competition - Abbreviated contract docs - Co-locate design on site - Use of available materials - Contractor design involvement - Incentivize critical success factors Award: 1 day Complete:  91 days MDOT 2 new bridges - Need contractor input to design - Invitation only prequalified contractors – negotiated GMP - Emergency permit waiver None - Limited competition - Standing list  - Use of available materials - Contractor design involvement Award: 2 days Complete:  82 days MnDOT Replace I-35W bridge - Extensive agency DB experience; needed sophisticated contractor - Minimized info req’d in proposals;  - Categorical exclusion for 10 req’d permits $7 million & $2 million/10 day period early capped at $20 million - Confidential ATCs -Confidential one-on-one meetings - Co-locate design on site - Contractor design involvement - Incentivize critical success factors - Abbreviated contract Award: 50 days Complete:  339 days 094-5 Agency Scope PDM Choice Rational – Procurement Procedures – Permits  Incentive Details Expedited Procurement Tools  Time to Completion docs MoDOT I-270 landslide repair - DBB project known to be in high land-slide zone. - Nested DB provision with specialty contractor to repair slide if req’d - No permits required None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement Award: none Complete:  120 days MDT US-2 rockfall mitigation - Need single source of design and construction - Nested UP provision in LS contract  - Contractor pulled permits None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement - Confidential ATCs -Confidential one-on-one meetings Award: 87 days Complete:  157 days NYSDOT Replace 981G bridge  - Need stand-by contractor - IDIQ procured before emergency  - Emergency permit waiver None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement Award: none Complete:  57 days ODOT I-35 Culvert Repair - DBB with I/D only authorized PDM - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Emergency permit waiver $16K/day capped at $100K - Limited competition - Standing list  - Use of available materials - Incentivize critical success factors Award: 1 day Complete:  15 days UDOT SR-14 landslide repair - Need contractor input to design - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Minimized info req’d in proposals; - Contractor pulled permits None - Abbreviated proposal docs - Contractor design involvement Award: 38 days Complete:  360 days 4.1 Case Study Procurement Analysis Table 2 shows that the need to have the construction contractor’s input during design drives the selection of a project delivery method for an emergency project. Agencies favor CMGC and DB since these methods involve the contractor making substantive input to the design process and purport to improve constructability and construction phasing (West et al. 2012). Caltrans and ODOT did not have the statutory authority to use DB or CMGC, and therefore, both agencies turned to adding large incentives to their DBB contracts as a means of encouraging the contractor to focus on achieving an aggressive schedule (Bai et al. 2006). Maine had authority to use DB but wanted to use in-house design assets, which is functionally impossible in a DB contract. Thus, the agency sought emergency authority to use CMGC to replace the Route 27 bridges (Pulver 2012). New York’s emergency  bridge replacement IDIQ was in place when Hurricane Irene washed out the bridges over the Ramapo River (NYSDOT 2007) and as such was able to marry up in-house design assets with the IDIQ contractor that delivered the projects in exactly the same fashion as a typical CMGC project with the contractor identifying immediately available structural steel sections around which the NYSDOT engineers designed (Rueda and Gransberg 2014). This leads to the conclusion that early contractor design involvement is key to not only achieving an expedited delivery but it also facilitates the schedule by designing a project that is highly constructable. Table 2 also shows that when an agency is unable to obtain an emergency waiver of environmental permitting requirements, the contractor can be given the responsibility for obtaining the permits based on its actual means and methods. The Montana DOT assigned the permit responsibility to its contractor 094-6 because the permits would be specific to the means and methods that would be used in the field (MDT 2011). The Utah DOT shared the permitting responsibility with its contractor because of the need to build a temporary access road as quickly as possible to provide egress for the residents that were trapped by the landslide in the valley. A Stream Alteration Permit wasrequired to restore the bed and banks of the creek that is located below the road as well as permits from the county, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources. Lastly coordination was required with the local Native American tribe. To quantify the risk of delay due to permitting, UDOT had the contractor develop two schedules, naming them the “Fast Track” and “Slow Track” permitting packages. These planning packages included right-of-way, environmental documents, and the contractor’s site grading package, which is dependent on both. The Slow Track schedule was 60 days and the Fast Track schedule is 25 days. Permits were received in time to allow preliminary construction to start and accomplish the removal of excess material and to build the temporary access road (UDOT 2011). Five of the case study projects limited competition to a standing list of prequalified contractors. While still limiting free and open competition, this approach provides more competition than a sole source award and essentially give all potential contractors the chance to qualify for inclusion on the prequalified list before the emergency. Thus, the risk of a protest of award based on restricting competition is reduced and the agency is encouraging as much competition as practical given the urgency of the emergency procurement. Lastly, every case study project utilized some form of altered or streamlined version of procurement procedures to advertise, evaluate and award the contract. One end of the spectrum was the Florida project that was awarded using FDOT’s standard form modified with seven pages of hand-written “assumptions and clarifications” (Maxey 2006). Minnesota’s process reduced the size of the DB proposal for $240 million bridge project to a mere 20 pages by holding confidential one-on-one conferences to clarify issues in the solicitation and entertain alternative technical concepts (Heitpas 2008). Montana modified its routine lump sum DB contract by adding a unit price item as a means of sharing the geotechnical risk with its design-builder.  4.2 Case Study Incentives Analysis A recent Strategic Highway Research 2 study found that on complex projects the agency should first identify critical success factors and then incentivize those aspects of project delivery that contribute to success (Gransberg et al. 2013). Table 2 shows that to be the case in only four of the nine projects included monetary incentives. To put this in perspective, three of the cases, Missouri, Montana and New York, were contracts awarded before the emergency occurred and therefore, the contracts were formed without the urgency inherent to contracts procured after an emergency event, reducing the need for incentives and quite frankly, making large incentives more difficult to justify. In these cases, the incentive is in winning the contract. Maine and Utah were other two cases without incentives and both were delivered using CMGC. In CMGC, the contractor is actively involved in forming the final design solution (West et al. 2012) and in both cases, the agency created an incentive for expeditious completion in its contractor selection scheme during procurement. Previous project delivery methods research found that contractors view the possibility of getting future work by satisfactorily completing a CMGC project as the most valuable incentive available in this method, or as stated by one author: “By far the most important incentive that an owner has is the promise of repeat work” (Thomsen 2006). Thus, one can infer that the agency can use the benefits inherent with winning new work as the incentive if it anticipates the emergency, and it can leverage the same incentive after the emergency by selecting CMGC project delivery. 4.3 Case Study Tools Analysis Gray and Larson (2008) describe project management as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” A recent study defines a procurement tool as “those things that project management practitioners use to ‘do the job’ to execute a process.” (Besner and Hobbs 2008). Thus, the term as used in this paper refers to a specific technique or approach used to expedite the procurement of either design and construction services on an urgent or emergency 094-7 basis. Table 3 consolidates the expedited procurement tools show in Table 2.  One can see that involving the construction contractor in the design process is the most frequently used tool followed by the use of limited competition and incentives. Table 3: Case Study Expedited Procurement Tools Expedited Procurement Tool Number of Agencies Remarks Contractor design involvement 6 None Limited competition 4 Minnesota effectively limited competition by short-listing known entities Incentivize critical success factors 4 None Anticipated emergency with special provision 3 None Standing list of prequalified contractors 3 None Abbreviated contract documents 3 All cases altered their routine process in some fashion. Use of immediately available materials 3 None Co-locate design team on project site 2 None Confidential Alternative Technical Concepts 2 None Confidential one-on-one meetings 2 None  The Utah DOT found that design documents developed in nonemergency CMGC contracts were released for construction much earlier due to contractor involvement (Alder 2007). Additionally, as the contractor is already under contract, the designer no longer needs to produce a full set of biddable construction documents. The agency can direct it to develop its design documents on a feature by feature basis at a point in time where the contractor declares there is sufficient detail for it to release for the trade subcontract work package bids (Alder 2007; West et al. 2012).  A previous study on early contractor design involvement (ECDI) found that it yields four specific benefits useful in an emergency procurement: 1. “ECDI permits the DOT to gain access to information regarding available construction means, methods, and materials. This permits the design to be tailored to the immediate need 2. ECDI adds a reality check to the design process via the designer getting immediate feedback on the consequences of design decisions from the entity that is tasked to construct the project. This results in a more constructable project. 3. The use of time-based incentives in emergency projects focuses the contractor on executing very aggressive schedule and to devote as much effort as possible to ECDI as a means to get design packages released for construction in a timely manner. 4. While ECDI does not transfer the design liability, it does produce a higher quality set of design documents with a lower probability of the need for delay due to changes for design errors and omissions.” (Gransberg 2013).  Both Table 3 and the subsequent discussion lead one to the conclusion that the involving the construction contractor in the design process is the most effective procurement tool to expedite the completion of emergency project. Additionally, limiting competition reduces the procurement period to as little as one day and if limited to a standing list of prequalified contractors can reduce the risk of award protest. Finally, emergency projects should be recognized as inherently complex and as such, the case studies show that 094-8 aligning thoughtfully developed incentives with critical project success factors also facilitate the expedited completion of the project.  5 CONCLUSIONS  Three major conclusions are reached in this study. The first is the most obvious. The best way to expedite the reaction to an emergency is to anticipate it. The study found two approaches to ensuring that the necessary resources were available to react to an unforeseen event: Missouri’s nested DB provision and NYSDOT’s IDIQ for emergency bridge replacement. It also identified Montana’s approach to nesting a unit price provision inside a lump sum DB contract to provide a means to mitigate the risk to the infrastructure from rock slides. In each case, actions were taken in advance of an emergency in a full and open competition environment and as such did not require emergency waiver of competition statutes. Secondly, the study finds that selecting a project delivery method like CMGC, DB, or IDIQ which is structured to permit the construction contractor to make substantive input to the emergency project’s design was the most used expedited procurement tool among the case study agencies. The lesson learned here is that the separation of designer and contractor that exists in traditional DBB construction contracts, actually works against the expeditious resolution of an emergency loss of service. Bring the contractor into the emergency project design process, allows the repair and restoration of service to be tailored to that particular contractor’s preferred means and methods and enhances the constructability of the final design solution. Lastly, maintaining a standing list of prequalified contractors willing to bid on an emergency basis permits the agency to provide as much competition as possible while avoiding the delays associated with running a full open competition solicitation. This conclusion speaks to the political environment rather than the technical aspects of emergency procurements. As with the first conclusion, the standing list acts as an insulator against delays due to protest of award founded on the idea that competition statutes were violated. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis Series (Synthesis 43-11) for it support for this research. References Alder, R. 200. UDOT Construction Manager General Contract (CMGC) Annual Report. Utah Department of Transportation Project Development Group, Engineering Services and Bridge Design Section, Salt Lake City, Utah: 39. Atzei, A. Groepper, P.  Novara, M. and Pseiner, K. 1999. Innovations for Competitiveness: European Views on ‘Better-Faster-Cheaper’,” Acta Astronautica, 44(7-12): 745-754. Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. 2008. Project Management Practice, Generic or Contextual: A Reality Check. Project Management Journal, 39(1): 16-33. Florida State Government, Florida Senate. Ch. 252.38. 2010. Emergency Management Powers of Political Subdivisions, Tallahassee, Florida. Retrieved from: http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0200-0299/0252/Sections/0252.38.html. [March 14, 2014]. Gransberg D.D. and Loulakis, M.C.. 2012. Expedited Procurement Procedures for Emergency Construction Services, Synthesis 438, Transportation Research Board, National Academies, Washington, D.C: 118pp. Gransberg, D.D., Shane, J.S. Strong, K.  and Lopez del Puerto, C. 2013. Project Complexity Mapping in Five Dimensions for Complex Transport Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 29(4): 316-326. 094-9 Gransberg, D.D., 2013. Case Studies of Early Contractor Design Involvement to Expedite the Delivery of Emergency Highway Projects. Transportation Research Record No. 2347, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies: 19-26. Gray, C. and Larson, E.  2008. Project Management: The Managerial Process, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, New York. Hietpas, J. 2008. I-35W St. Anthony Falls Bridge: Planning the Replacement. Aspire: 24-27. Houston, N. 2011. Emergency Procurement – When is an Emergency Really an Emergency? Coates’ Canons: NC Local Government Law Blog, Retrieved from: http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ localgovt/?p=4717 [April 12, 2014]. Maxey, D. 2006. Emergency Repair of the I-10 Bridge Over Escambia Bay. FICE/FDOT Design Conference, Orlando, Florida: 43. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) 2011. Design-Build Request for Proposal US 2 – Rockfall Mitigation, Flathead County, Project # SFCN 1-2(169)154, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana: 39. New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT). 2007. New Mexico Department of Transportation Internal Procedures Manual, Section L – Emergency Purchase, NMDOT, Santa Fe, New Mexico: 124. Neuendorf, K.A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: 300. Perry, J.L. and Hines, M.L. 2007. Emergency Contracting: Flexibilities in Contracting Procedures During An Emergency, NCHRP Legal Research Digest No. 49. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C: 3-25. Pulver, B. 2012. Maine DOT Accelerated CMGC. FHWA 2012 CMGC Peer Exchange, Boston, Massachusetts: 35. Richmond, D., Cown, J.  Ball, D.  and Rolland, J.M.  2006. Private Sector Investments in Public Infrastructure. Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships:14.  Rueda-Benavides, J.A. and Gransberg, D.D. 2014. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contracting: A Case Study Analysis. Transportation Research Record, No. 2408, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies: 17-25. Thomsen, C. 2006. “Project Delivery Processes. Parsons Corporation, Retrieved from: http://www.3di.com/rnd/Files/Essays/Project%20Delivery%20Strategy.pdf [accessed Nov. 22, 2014]. United States Code (USC), 2000. Title 23 USC- Highways, As Amended Through Public Law 106-347: 213.  Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 2011. Emergency Contracting/Procurement Procedure, UDOT Salt Lake City, Utah: 1-34. West, N.J.N., Gransberg, D.D. and McMinimee, J. 2012 . Effective Tools for Projects Delivered Using the Construction Manager/General Contractor. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies: 32-42. Yin, R. 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, New York: 254.  094-10  EXPEDITING EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENTS: CASE STUDIES IN SUCCESS . Douglas D. Gransberg Professor, Iowa State University Jorge A. Rueda-Benavides Doctoral Candidate, Iowa State University 1 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Contract Law – Barrier to Emergency Construction n   Construction contracting is based on competitive tendering process. n   National laws have restrictive definitions of the term “competition” n   Most permit the suspension of rules in an emergency…. n   BUT ….. 2 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Contract Law – Barrier to Emergency Construction n  Emergency projects draw maximum scrutiny from the public and press. •   Criticism for not moving fast enough •   Criticism for sacrificing quality •   20-20 hindsight after the fact including accusations of abuse or impropriety. n   Hence…. Agency leaders are reluctant to vary from the tried and true procurement process. 3 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg 4 Emergency Construction ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Alternative Project Delivery Methods n   Many options world-wide. n   Purpose is to accelerate the delivery of needed transport infrastructure projects. n   Victor Mendez – Director US FHWA  …”it’s imperative we pursue better, faster, and smarter ways of doing business” n   Note: Smarter not Cheaper 5 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Suite of Alternative Project Delivery Methods 6 AlliancingEarly Contractor InvolvementDesign Construction MaintenancePlanningDesign-Bid-BuildDesign-BuildConstruction Manager/General ContractorPublic Private Partnership©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg The Common Thread n   All engage the construction contractor in the design process in some manner. n   Early contractor design involvement (EDCI) = more constructable design = ability to complete construction as fast as practical. n   Therefore – EDCI makes sense in an emergency. 7 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Methodology n   Case study research •   9 US Emergency Projects n  Range of project delivery methods – DBB, CMGC, ECI, DB, IDIQ. n  Range of project size – typical small project to mega-project n  Range of project location – regionally dispersed n  Both in-house and out-sourced design   8 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Agency Scope PDM Choice Rational – Procurement Procedures – Permits  Incentive Details Expedited Procurement Tools  Time to Completion Caltrans Replace I-580 overpass and  I-880 deck - DBB with I/D only authorized PDM - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Emergency permit waiver   $200K/day capped at $5 million - Limited competition - Standing list  - Incentivize critical success factors Award: Demo – 1 day New – 2 days Complete:  27 days FDOT Temp-orary bridge - Need single source of design and construction - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Used expedited award with hand-written scope - Emergency permit waiver $250K/day capped at $3 million - Limited competition - Abbreviated contract docs - Co-locate design on site - Use of available materials - Contractor design involvement - Incentivize critical success factors Award: 1 day Complete:  91 days MDOT 2 new bridges - Need contractor input to design - Invitation only prequalified contractors – negotiated GMP - Emergency permit waiver None - Limited competition - Standing list  - Use of available materials - Contractor design involvement Award: 2 days Complete:  82 days MnDOT Replace I-35W bridge - Extensive agency DB experience; needed sophisticated contractor - Minimized info req’d in proposals;  - Categorical exclusion for 10 req’d permits $7 million & $2 million/10 day period early capped at $20 million - Confidential ATCs -Confidential one-on-one meetings - Co-locate design on site - Contractor design involvement - Incentivize critical success factors - Abbreviated contract docs Award: 50 days Complete:  339 days Agency Scope PDM Choice Rational – Procurement Procedures – Permits  Incentive Details Expedited Procurement Tools  Time to Completion MoDOT I-270 landslide repair - DBB project known to be in high land-slide zone. - Nested DB provision with specialty contractor to repair slide if req’d - No permits required None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement Award: none Complete:  120 days MDT US-2 rockfall mitigation - Need single source of design and construction - Nested UP provision in LS contract  - Contractor pulled permits None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement - Confidential ATCs -Confidential one-on-one meetings Award: 87 days Complete:  157 days NYSDOT Replace 981G bridge  - Need stand-by contractor - IDIQ procured before emergency  - Emergency permit waiver None - Anticipated emergency with special provision - Contractor design involvement Award: none Complete:  57 days ODOT I-35 Culvert Repair - DBB with I/D only authorized PDM - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Emergency permit waiver $16K/day capped at $100K - Limited competition - Standing list  - Use of available materials - Incentivize critical success factors Award: 1 day Complete:  15 days UDOT SR-14 landslide repair - Need contractor input to design - Invitation only prequalified contractors - Minimized info req’d in proposals; None - Abbreviated proposal docs - Contractor design involvement Award: 38 days Complete:  360 days Case Study Procurement Analysis n  Need for contractor design involvement to react to emergencies: •  Need for speed = Need for constructability •  Caltrans, Oklahoma DOT, and Maine DOT sought special authority to use DB and CMGC. •  New York used IDIQ with on-board contractor furnishing information on available materials, ROW needs, and means/methods •  Montana and Utah: Assigned contractor to pull the necessary permits. 11 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Case Study Incentives Analysis n  4 of 9 projects used incentives n  Montana, Missouri, and New York anticipated the emergency – therefore, no need to incentivize n  Maine and Utah used CMGC – agency made expeditious completion part of the award. n  Winning contract became the incentive. n  “By far the most important incentive that an owner has is the promise of repeat work” (Thomsen 2006). 12 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Procurement Tools for Expediting Emergency Projects n  Procurement Tool: a specific technique or approach used to expedite the procurement of either design and construction services on an urgent or emergency basis.  13 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Procurement Tools Identified ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg 14 Expedited Procurement Tool Number Contractor design involvement 6 Limited competition 4 Incentivize critical success factors 4 Anticipated emergency with special provision 3 Standing list of prequalified contractors 3 Abbreviated contract documents 3 Use of immediately available materials 3 Co-locate design team on project site 2 Confidential Alternative Technical Concepts 2 Confidential one-on-one meetings 2 Case Study Procurement Tools Analysis n  Contractor design involvement most frequently used •  Access to available construction means, methods, and materials to tailor design to the immediate need. •  Adds a reality check to the design process •  Encourages constructability in design. n  Limiting competition reduces procurement period •  Anticipating emergency allows normal competition   15 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Conclusions n   The fastest way to react to an emergency is to anticipate it and make provisions in advance of the event.  •   New York State DOT’s State-wide Emergency Bridge IDIQ contract and  •   MoDOT nested DB provision •  MDT’s nested unit price provision •  Standing list of emergency contractors n  Reduces limited competition protest risk. 16 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg Conclusions n  Streamlined procedures for DBB, DB, and CMGC delivery of emergency projects can be developed to successfully accelerate the procurement of design and construction assets in response to a major emergency.  17 ©  2015, All rights reserved, Douglas D. Gransberg 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52660.1-0076475/manifest

Comment

Related Items