Interface Between Designer, Contractor and Owner in Design-Build Projects – Innovation and Realization
By: Chris Petrov, P.E., PMP

Introduction
This paper will discuss recently gained experience in constructing large transportation projects. The project has been a part of the Owner's planned freeway system for more than 40 years. Studies, design concepts and community involvements in this project were initiated about 20 years ago, when it was included in the regional transportation plan.

This highway expansion project was divided into a few segments. The first two segments were publicly funded with federal and local sales tax money. One involved the reconstruction of an existing roadway and building the missing six lane freeway link of this roadway. The other segment involved construction of a four-lane new freeway. The last stretch of the new construction was a privately funded Toll road. The entire project was executed through a Design-Build Contract.

Freeway Alignment
As many as seventeen different alignments have been carefully studied and evaluated through the concept design and Environmental Impact Report. The roadway plans were not approved by the State Agency when the contract was signed, therefore, it became the designer's responsibility to finalize the alignment and to get it approved. The challenge for the design team and the contractor was to initiate the structures design prior to the roadway design approval. In this fast track project, with a compressed schedule, it was crucial to start the structure design "on risk". The most important factor of working "on risk" was identifying the level of risk and its impact on cost and schedule.

During the initial screening, all of the bridges were classified and categorized by the risk of structure changes due to the alignment adjustments. The design started from structures which would not be impacted or would have minimal changes to the length, height, or skew. It was the project management responsibility to inform all parties involved with the most current alignment changes. The system of placing the revised roadway plans on the FTP site, marking-up the revisions, and notifying everyone with up-to-date information was constantly evolving and enhanced. The goal was to optimize the system so each team leader was provided with sufficient information for the area of their responsibility.

During weekly meetings, the design manager reported to the contractor and owner's representative. The focus of the discussions included the design progress and alignment changes which could significantly impact the design, schedule, and construction cost. From the designers perspective, it was important to document all the decisions and directions from the contractor so to ensure that they were in the agreement with the owner's expectations and requirements.

The impacts on the project cost and schedule were carefully studied for all cases. It must be noted that it was extremely important to begin communication with various parties early-on in the concept stage. However, in some instances the project team experienced difficulties obtaining approvals or buy-offs of an alternative design from agencies which were not part of the team or not directly involved in the project. In fast track projects, it is critical to have all authorities and institutions with interest in the project and the project site evolved in the approval process in the earliest stage of the concept design.

Value Engineering
From the start of the project, the design team reviewed the advanced planning study reports with the idea to propose an alternative - more economical design. Some of the proposed value engineering concepts are as follows:

• Combining two bridges in one bridge structure. Two adjacent bridge structures were about 90 ft apart so the design team proposed to combine both structures in one bridge.
• Substituting high skewed bridge with cut-and-cover tunnel. The skew of one of the bridge structure was 57°, so the designer proposed cut-and-cover tunnel instead of two bridges. After careful evaluation, the proposal was accepted and the design team proceeded with the final design. However, during the approval process the design team experienced difficulties with acceptance of the ventilation calculations. The State Agency insisted on applying tight standards as compared to the written recommendations for tunnel ventilation design. The design team went through several rounds of submitting calculations to get the final approval. Unfortunately, this resulted in the significant delay of the approval of this structure.
• Substituting the standard box girder cross section with a cross section which has fewer, but wide spread webs. The design team studied the option of optimizing the cross section and proposed a new cross section, which was different from the widely used conventional one. The contractor evaluated the amount of potential savings and the risk of impacting the schedule because of the approval. To avoid the risk of a longer approval process and delaying the construction, the contractor decided to proceed with the conventional section.
• Reduce the min longitudinal steel at the bridge superstructure required by the State Agency's standard details and recommendations. This value engineering was accepted from the contractor and the State Agency gave green light on the concept. The original schedule was not affected by implementing the value engineering.

The intent of all of these proposals was to save time and materials to the contractor. The discussion in this paper is not on the technical aspects, but on the value engineering process in design-build contracts. The value engineering procedure was covered in the contract, but it was not followed in all of the cases. For two of the proposals: "combining the two bridges" and "wide spread webs", the design team developed the concepts without clear directions from the contractor and without agreement on how the effort would be compensated. For the "cut-and-cover" alternative, the contractor authorized the extra work; however, the involvement of the ventilation expert was in the latter stage and caused schedule delays. The best example of following the value engineering procedure was the final proposal of reducing the "minimum required seismic steel". The design team realized that there was potential savings and proposed to the contractor to proceed with more detailed analysis.

It is important to follow the contract and have a plan with the following steps when proposing value engineering:

• Present the idea to the contractor, describe the potential savings
• Present estimate of additional effort to implement the idea
• Impact on the schedule
• Method of compensation
• Investigate any special requirements, standards or site specific conditions, which could be obstructive to the proposal
• Inform the approving agencies and other related authorities.

Approval Process
At the start of the project, the project management team developed a detailed procedure for starting construction early. The procedure was coordinated and accepted by the contractor and was then submitted for review and approval to the State Agencies. The idea was to get the plans approval on stages: foundations, substructure, and final design, so the contractor would be able to start construction prior to the final approval of the plans. The system was established for the construction of bridges in the critical path. However, this scheme was never implemented in reality and the contractor started construction of each bridge after the entire set of plans were approved and signed off. The scheme was not used for several reasons:

• Bridges identified as critical were deleted for other reasons and the design was approved on time
• The system was not flexible enough to show real schedule acceleration. Even to get partial approval, the design needed to be about 80% complete and the drawings subject of approval needed to be 100% complete
• The procedure required more submittals compared to the standard and the overall process was longer.

Conclusions
To make a project successful, all the parties involved - the owner, contractor and designer must have fully understanding and agreement of the contract, scope of work and schedule. The following conclusions are commonly known; however, very often they are not applied in the full extent of their content, which cause project delays and budget overrun:

• Clear understanding of the scope of work and the schedule
• Contract is a tool to help everybody involved, full understanding of the contract helps to manage the project better
• Regular partnering sessions with people involved and in charge must be conducted
• All parties involved must be informed without any delay for condition changes or raised issues
• Ensure each party's accountability for the project success.

Mr. Petrov has over 20 years of practical experience in management, design, construction and supervision of large and international transportation projects. His experience includes large design-build projects, railroads, highways, pedestrian bridges, concrete segmental bridges and steel and composite structures. Mr. Petrov has extensive experience in the design and application of special erection equipment and technologies.

Mr. Petrov graduated with a B.S. a Civil Engineering from the Technical University of Sofia, School of Architecture and Engineering. He is a Professional Engineer in California, Arizona, and Oregon and registered with National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Mr. Petrov's memberships include the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Transportation Development Institute; Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California; International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering; Project Management Institute and the Structural Engineering Institute.

NEW CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FOR PEGASUS GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.
Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc. (Pegasus GHI), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Nielsen-Wurster Group, Inc., has announced their move into a new corporate headquarters, located in Cle Elum, Washington, USA.

This new facility provides Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc. with the increased space and expansion needed to accommodate growth in our Risk Management and Management Consulting globally. Dr. Kris R. Nielsen, Chief Executive Officer and President of Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc., views the new facilities and the state-of-the-art communications capability will enhance the formidable capacity of Pegasus and Nielsen-Wurster to meet current and potential client needs.  "This new location expands the key support hub in Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc. already strategically located facilities."

Pegasus GHI focuses on improving the management globally utilizing over 30 years of lessons learned at Nielsen-Wurster. Pegasus GHI applies the experiences gained by the senior staff from both Pegasus GHI and Nielsen-Wurster to increase the Clients likelihood of achieving its goals and objectives. For more information, please contact: Dr. Kris R. Nielsen, Chief Executive Officer and President, e-mail: k.nielsen@pegasus-global.com or visit www.pegasus-global.com

THE NEW HEADQUARTERS CONTACT INFORMATION:
Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
1750 Emerick Road
Cle Elum, WA USA 98922
Tel: +1 (509) 857-2235
Fax: +1 (509) 857-2237
Website address: www.pegasus-global.com
Dr. Kris R. Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer and President
E-mail: k.nielsen@pegasus-global.com

OFFICE LOCATIONS:
Fairfax, Virginia, USA
11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 240
Fairfax, VA 22030 USA
Tel: +1 (703) 691-7800
Fax: +1 (703) 691-8377
William R. Kerivan
Senior Vice President and Division Manager, Management Consulting
E-mail: w.kerivan@pegasus-global.com

Houston, Texas, USA
20333 State Highway 249
Suite 625
Houston, TX 77070 USA
Tel: +1 (281) 248-2873
Fax: +1 (281) 248-2874
Harold Dorbin
Executive Vice President and Division Manager, Risk Management
E-mail: h.dorbin@pegasus-global.com         

Princeton, NJ, USA
1060 State Road, 2nd Floor
Tel: +1 (609) 497-7300
Fax: +1 (609) 497-3412
Dr. Kris Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer and President
E-mail: k.nielsen-@pegasus-global.com      

Seattle, Washington, USA
719 2nd Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, WA 98104 USA
Tel: +1 (206) 386-5250
Fax: +1 (206) 386-5252
Jack L. Dignum
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
E-mail: j.dignum@pegasus-global.com

Shell Oil Company Construction Law Workshop
Lensbury Conference Centre - London, England
January 30-31, 2007(...more)

Achieving Risk Leadership in Complex Project Management
Sydney, Australia
March 21-22, 2007 (...more)

Fourth Annual PMI College of Scheduling Conference - CPM Turns 50: A Birthday Celebration
Vancouver Marriott Pinnacle Downtown - Vancouver, Canada
April 15-18, 2007 (...more)

2007 Design - Build In Transportation Conference
Minneapolis Marriott City Center - Minneapolis, MN
April 18-20, 2007 (...more)

2007 International Construction SuperConference - Challenges and Opportunities in a Global Economy
Millennium Gloucester Hotel London Kensington - London, England
May 20-22, 2007 (...more)

AACE 51st Annual Meeting
Gaylord Opryland - Nashville, Tennessee
July 15-18, 2007 (...more)

4th Annual Project Management Australia Conference
Conrad Jupiters - Gold Coast, Australia
August 28-31, 2007 (...more)

The Nielsen-Wurster Group has more than 30 years of experience providing private and public clients independent expert advice required to effectively manage the risks inherent in projects, operations, and technology, as well as provide expert analyses in disputed situations. Our extensive experience in power, process, infrastructure, resource, industrial, telecommunications and transportation matters have involved analysis of large and complex projects from all perspectives, including analysis of project changes and changed conditions, design and constructability issues, assessments associated with project and schedule delays, costs overruns, resource efficiency and work quality.

For more information, please go to www.nielsen-wurster.com.