Revision as of 07:28, 28 March 2014

Design-Build is a project delivery method in which the design and construction services are contracted by a single entity. Design-Build provides a single point of responsibility in the contract in an attempt to reduce project risk, shorten the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project and minimize overall project costs. The selection of the design-build contractor is based on qualifications of the proposed teams and the overall best value of each proposal based on the established end result goals of the project.

Helpful Documents		Helpful Links
Design-Build Values		MoDOT Design-Build website
Commission Chief Engineer Authority Example		7 CSR 10-24
Sample Project Goals		23 CFR Part 636
FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement		Missouri Design-Build Statue 227.107
Design-Build Process Checklist		FHWA Quality Tech Brief
Design-Build Acronyms
Project Advertisement Example		Forms
I-64 RFQ		139.1.3 Confidentiality Agreement
Industry Meeting Agenda Example		139.8.1 Review Comment and Response Sheet (RCRS)
Industry Meeting Name Tag Key		139.8.1.5 SOQ Conflict of Interest Form
Industry Meeting Blank Sign-in Sheet		139.8.2.2(a) Request for Clarification (RFC) Form
I-64 RFP		139.8.2.2 (b) Additional Applicable Standard (AAS) Form
Sample Basic Configurations		139.8.2.2 (c) Design Exception Form
Sample Scoring Criteria		139.8.2.2(d) Design Exception Information Form
I-64 ITP		139.8.2.2(e) Environmental Commitments Form
Sample Quality Oversight Plans		139.8.2.5 Proposal Conflict of Interest Form
Financial Services Coding for Design-Build		139.8.2.6 Stipend Release Agreement
File Storage Structure for Design-Build

Traditionally, MoDOT has used the design-bid-build approach for project delivery. This approach involves the development of design plans by either internal staff or an engineering consultant and separate selection of the contractor by the lowest responsive bid method. The design-build approach enables the designer and contractor to work together to develop the most cost effective yet constructible set of plans given their strengths and efficiencies. Since the contractor is on board at the start of design, construction can begin as soon as the necessary design detail is developed. This overlapping of design and construction reduces the overall delivery schedule and delivers the completed project faster. The design-build procurement schedule generally lasts six to eight months compared to the two to three years it takes to design and award a traditional design-bid-build contract.

Not every project is a good candidate for design-build. The traditional design-bid-build approach to a project is often the most viable process for typical construction projects, especially those that are fairly routine or constrained in some manner that reduces the opportunity for innovation. However, the design-build advantages of speed and flexibility in design and construction innovation can prove to be ideal on certain complex projects. Design-Build should be considered for projects that have:

Multiple solutions providing an opportunity for innovation,
High impact to the public especially with traffic control,
Other unique or unusual conditions or the need for specialty skills for the project’s design and construction.

Design-Build History

MoDOT was originally granted authority to use the design-build process on three pilot projects by the Missouri General Assembly in 2004. The first design-build procurement began in 2005 with the $535 million reconstruction of Interstate 64 in St. Louis. In 2007, the second design-build procurement began for the $245 million I-29/I-35 kcICON Christopher S. Bond Bridge over the Missouri River. In 2008, the third design-build procurement was launched for the Safe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program, replacing 554 bridges across the state for $487 million. All three projects received national acclaim and were completed on time or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.

Following that success, the Missouri General Assembly granted further design-build authority to MoDOT, allowing up to two percent of its annual number of projects to be delivered using the design-build delivery model.

Information on all past, current and upcoming design-build projects can be found on MoDOT’s Design-Build webpage.

139.1 Design-Build Values

Prescriptive methods and requirements for design-build projects limit the creativity of the private sector and ultimately limit the project scope. Therefore, the design-build philosophy and its processes focus on the desired end result for the project. This focus ensures that there is the greatest opportunity for flexibility and innovation during both design and construction of the project and maximizes the likelihood to deliver the project within the available project budget. By allowing design-build contractors to propose alternative FHWA approved approaches to means and methods, material requirements, specifications and best practices, the design-build teams can bring innovation to MoDOT. This opportunity not only benefits the delivery of the related project, but allows MoDOT to capitalize on industry development and advancement by providing a pathway for their innovation into the way MoDOT does business. Due to the unique nature of MoDOT’s design-build approach, each project team must hold the following core values paramount throughout the design-build process.

139.1.1 Be Goal Oriented

Prioritized project goals are critical for success and are used to focus the project on the big picture and end result. The project goals guide all decisions throughout procurement and contract execution.

139.1.2 Be Flexible

Flexibility during design-build procurement allows industry to identify the best possible project solution, providing the best value. Flexibility maximizes the opportunity for innovation, identifies the best solutions, provides the most improvements for the budget, brings new ideas to MoDOT and develops a partnering attitude. Project teams should maintain flexibility throughout the contract by evaluating design plans and change proposals based on the contract requirements and project goals. On design-build projects, the goal is to never say, “That’s not how MoDOT does it.”

139.1.3 Be Confidential

MoDOT has developed a “best in the industry” reputation for confidentiality. Confidentiality allows trust to be established with the industry, creates a safe environment for the industry to be innovative, drives competition to provide the best proposal, and validates the design-build selection process. Each person (MoDOT employee, consultant, or, in some cases, external partners) involved in development of the contract or in project scoring is asked to sign a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement. Keeping project information confidential throughout the procurement process is held as a critical value for every project team. Each person (except FHWA representatives) involved in the project procurement process shall sign a Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3). Discussions with anyone who has not signed the Confidentiality Agreement are not allowed. Each person (except FHWA representatives) that participates in scoring shall sign a Conflict of Interest Form (Form 139.8.1.5) for SOQs or a Conflict of Interest Form for Proposals (Form 139.8.2.5).

139.1.4 Be an Empowered Team

For design-build projects, some specific authority of the Chief Engineer is granted to the Project Director of each project. This authority establishes the Project Director as the project decision maker, creates trust with industry, expedites the decision making process throughout the contract and helps develop one team with the contractor. The authority gives the contractor confidence that when a decision is made by the Project Director, the decision is final.

With the delegation of authority, the confidence shown by executive management provides the project team with credibility with the proposers during the procurement phase of the project, and with the selected design-build contractor during implementation. In addition, when the proposers perceive that management has delegated authority to and has confidence in the project team members, there is no temptation to “go over the heads” of the team members to pressure management into making decisions that may conflict with the decisions of the project teams. The delegation of authority to the Project Director requires commission action. When the Project Director uses this authority, they should attach documentation of the commission action granting the authority, usually in the form of a memo from the Chief Engineer.

An example of the authority typically given to the Project Director is available.

For each project, staff from different functional units should be designated to participate on the project team. Typically, this team consists of traditional core team members, with each member having different areas of expertise, such as design, bridge, construction, right of way, utilities, geotechnical, traffic, customer relations and/or maintenance. Each core discipline applicable to the project should be included in the contract development process. In some cases, not all disciplines will be represented on the main project team. In this situation, the Project Director has the responsibility of conferring with subject matter experts, such as design, bridge, environmental, financial, maintenance, traffic, construction or Right of Way staff, to assist in the decision making process, as appropriate.

139.2 Project Selection

* EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment provides guidance for design-build project selection.

* Examples of the MHTC back-up documents and transfer of authority are available.

The first steps of any design-build (DB) project are selecting a project and selecting a Project Director. EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment provides guidance for the Project Delivery Method Determination process, which includes goal setting strategies and risk analysis guidance. Upon selecting a project for DB, a Project Director is named by the district to be confirmed by the appropriate executive management. To obtain approval for both, the District Engineer shall contact the Design-Build Coordinator or State Design Engineer to discuss making arrangements for executive management to consider the project. If design-build is the concurred project delivery method, the MHTC will be consulted to approve the project for design-build and delegate certain approval and expenditure authorities to the Chief Engineer or the Chief Engineer's designee, typically the Project Director.

Once a project has received MHTC approval, basic information about the project should be placed on the Design-Build webpage, by the Project Director contacting the Design-Build Coordinator. The Project Director should also request up-to-date working contract documents, to use as a starting point for their contract.

139.3 The Project Team

The first tool is for the project director to create a small, five to ten member core management team to participate from development of the procurement documents, selection of the design-build contractor and oversight of the performance of the work on the project. The project team should represent a variety of engineering and other disciplines that are important to the project. If possible, the team should be located together and should meet at least weekly to manage the delivery of the project.

139.4 Project Goals on Design-Build

Once a project is selected as design-build, the project team should finalize the goals determined via guidance in EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment. The project team should then request approval of the goals by district and central office executive leadership. In order to effectively use project goals to guide the procurement process, the goals must be defined in order of importance. Prioritized goals provide a basis for project “trade-off” decisions during the development of design-build procurement documents and execution of the project contract. Whether the project team is determining short-list criteria, design-build contractor selection criteria, technical provision requirements or risk allocation, the prioritized project goals guide how one approach is selected over other viable options.

Examples of previous Design-Build project goals are available.

Prioritized goals are also useful as a public communication tool throughout the procurement process, as much of the design-build process is confidential in nature. The project goals convey to the public the end result they should see at project completion. Once the goals have been developed and approved, they can be made public, through a project website or other methods. Throughout the project, the goals should be clearly communicated to all project participants including all project personnel, industry public stakeholders.

139.5 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation on Design-Build

The design-build delivery method is unique in that it allows for risks to be assigned or transferred to the most appropriate party.

After developing project goals, the next step to successful design-build delivery involves two exercises, risk assessment and risk allocation. These exercises are the keys to maximizing the probability of achieving the desired outcome and meeting or exceeding the project goals. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are two distinct analyses used for different purposes on design-build projects.

Risk assessment for design-build projects involves an analysis of the risks involved on a project that likely would cause a design-build contractor to include cost or schedule contingencies in its proposal. The risk assessment should analyze which risks can be avoided or mitigated, prior to design-build contractor selection. As discussed in EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment, risks will be evaluated to determine the significance of each risk, the effort required to alleviate or mitigate each risk and the probability of each risk. The project team should use the high level risk assessment developed during the Project Delivery Method Determination Process as a starting point, examining the project in greater detail.

After the risk assessment has been completed, an evaluation of the party who is in the best position to manage and control all remaining risks (or impacts of remaining risks) further determines the most effective allocation of risks between MoDOT and the design-build contractor to best achieve the project goals. Risk allocation is an allocation between MoDOT and the contractor of responsibility for risks that cannot be avoided. Risk should be allocated to the party best able to manage each risk. The allocations of risks will be set forth in the contract documents.

The desired result of a risk assessment/allocation effort is to use MoDOT resources to avoid or mitigate as much risk as possible prior to Design-Build contractor selection paying close attention to the high impact, high probability risks and to allocate the remaining risks to the party that will be most able to effectively manage the risk.

Examples of areas of risks that should be evaluated during a risk allocation include:

1. Drainage – Who is best able to perform studies of off-site flows, hydrology, etc?

2. Environmental – MoDOT may be in the best position to obtain a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, however, the design-build contractor is the best party to obtain new permits or variances to existing environmental permits based upon its design.

3. Geotechnical – Once MoDOT has determined the extent of an adequate geotechnical investigation, it is normally the Design-Build contractor who should assume the risk of deviations from the borings.

4. Insurance – What type of insurance would be advantageous for each project - traditional insurance, OCIP, CCIP, PCIP?

5. Lighting Agreements – MoDOT may be able to reduce the Design-Build contractor’s contingency by reaching an agreement with the power company utility owner related to temporary lighting.

6. Maintenance During Construction Example - While the risk of maintenance during construction may be most appropriately allocated to the design-build contractor, the risk of extraordinary maintenance of the project during construction may be best allocated to MoDOT.

7. Method of Handling Traffic – Are there agreements that MoDOT can enter into with local jurisdictions for alternate routes?

8. Noise Walls – While MoDOT is probably the best party to assume the risk of dealing with the public regarding many noise wall issues during the environmental process, the Design-Build contractor is the best party to determine where the noise walls are required based upon its final design.

9. Public Information – While MoDOT may be the best position to identify and communicate daily coping messages to the public, the contractor is the best to notify MoDOT of upcoming work and public impacts.

10. Right of Way – While in typical situations, MoDOT is the party best able to acquire permanent right of way, the design-build contractor is in the best position to determine the necessary temporary right of way for the project.

11. Utilities – MoDOT can avoid high utility contingencies by reaching a master utility agreement with utility owners that define a process for relocations caused by the project.

139.6 Policy Issues in Design-Build

MoDOT uses a white paper process to develop the proposed approach for significant design-build elements and to communicate that approach to all interested employees. The white papers are ultimately approved by executive management for incorporation into the Design-Build Request for Proposal (RFP). White papers can also be used to document innovative ideas or solutions implemented on a design-build project, which may be useful on traditional design-bid-build projects.

The White Paper Process

The purpose of the white paper process is to document a recommended approach to particular design-build concepts and to receive concurrence by management and approval by the Chief Engineer. New or revised design-build concepts should follow the approval process below.

Step 1. Design-Build concepts are developed and described in white paper format.

Step 2. The draft white paper is reviewed, discussed and finalized by the Design-Build Coordinator.

Step 3. The draft white paper will be submitted to and reviewed by various Division Directors/Engineers when the white paper affects their jurisdiction, and by the Chief Engineer. Draft white papers may be provided to other select stakeholders if needed. Comments received will be reviewed by the Design-Build Coordinator. If the Design-Build Coordinator deems the comments to be consistent with nationally recognized design-build best practices, the comments will be incorporated into the draft white paper. If comments received during the stakeholder reviews differ from the original approach finalized by the design-build project team, both design-build concepts will be presented to the Chief Engineer for direction.

Step 4. The white paper is presented to the Chief Engineer for approval.

Approved white papers should be considered living documents to be updated on an as needed basis to reflect current policies on various design-build topics. The lessons learned identified during design-build projects need to be documented. Revised white papers shall be submitted to the Design-Build Coordinator for review and approval in order to ensure consideration during development of future design-build projects.

139.7 FHWA involvement on Design-Build Projects

MoDOT/FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement

Since the design-build process can be complex and involve time critical reviews and approvals, the MoDOT/FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement outlines the Missouri Division of FHWA’s involvement on design-build projects. The purpose of the Design-Build Program Agreement is to ensure that MoDOT and FHWA have an understanding of the level of involvement, approval actions, roles, responsibilities and processes that FHWA will provide on Design-Build projects. The agreement addresses the design-build procurement process, the NEPA process as it relates to design-build, the Access Justification Report (AJR) process and other approval requirements during contract execution.

Document Review Procedures

FHWA will review procurement documents developed for each project, for conformance with federal requirements. Feedback resulting from these reviews will be provided to MoDOT within timeframes included in the MoDOT/FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement. The project team shall also coordinate with Central Office staff, including the Design-Build Coordinator, regarding procurement document reviews. Internal reviews should occur prior to FHWA reviews, but can be performed concurrently if needed. It is important to allow for adequate review time when developing the project procurement schedule. The project team may use the Review Comment Response Sheet (RCRS) Form (Form 139.8.1) to collect and respond to comments.

139.8 Design-Build Procurement Process

The first phase in a two-phase, design-build procurement process begins with short-listing the most highly qualified submitters based on qualifications submitted in response to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). The second phase consists of the submission technical proposals, and sometimes contract price, in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP).

The Design-Build Process Checklist can be used as a guide through all the steps in the design-build process. A list of design-build acronyms can be helpful in learning the “language” of design-build.

Even before the procurement process begins, the MoDOT project teams shall not share information that will give any potential design-build team an advantage. Very little other than the project goals, schedule and budget can be shared publicly before the RFQ is released. Once the project goals are finalized and approved by the executive committee and the project budget set in STIP, this information and the procurement schedule can and should be shared publicly. Potential solutions will not be discussed publicly during the RFQ phase.

EPG 139 Design-Build focuses on the contents and concepts involved in a two-phase design-build procurement process, as that is the most likely approach to design-build procurement. However, the design-build rules and FHWA’s design-build regulations allow for a one-step procurement process (Modified Design-Build) that is typically used for small, non-complex projects that includes a low bid selection process.

139.8.1 Request for Qualifications (Phase 1)

During the RFQ (Phase 1) process, the qualifications are established that will be evaluated to determine which of the submitters are the most highly qualified to perform the design-build project. These qualifications should reflect the goals of the project. The short-listing process for design-build procurement should not be confused with the pre-qualification process for contractors used for design-bid-build projects. Short-listing submitters for a design-build project identifies the most highly qualified potential design-build team where prequalifying contractors for design-bid-build projects identifies all contractors that are qualified to submits bids.

It is required by state statute to short-list no more than five and no fewer than two submitters.

Missouri Design-Build Statute

139.8.1.1 Public Notice of Upcoming Design-Build Project

MoDOT is required by statute to give public notice, or advertise a Request for Qualifications in at least two public newspapers that are distributed wholly or in part in Missouri and at least one construction industry trade publication that is distributed nationally. Typically, advertisements are placed in large city newspapers (St. Louis and Kansas City), the local paper in the area of the project, and an engineering trade magazine, such as Roads and Bridges. Consideration should also be given to advertising in minority newspaper publications, if one exists in the project area. The advertisement should also be emailed to the MoDOT consultant and contractor databases, as well as the DBE database.

Typically, the advertisement is placed approximately 30 days prior to the industry meeting. Advertisements are run for one day (or one week/month in the case of a weekly/monthly publication). Trade publications typically offer an online advertisement that is less expensive.

A sample project advertisement is available.

The project advertisement should also be placed on the project website, which should be accessible through MoDOT’s Design-Build website as well as through the district and/or major project sites. The project website will be used throughout the RFQ (phase 1) process to communicate with potential submitters.

139.8.1.2 RFQ Process Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the RFQ process is to develop a short list of two to five submitters identified as the most highly qualified, which will be allowed to participate in the RFP process. The RFQ is the opportunity to communicate to interested parties the specific qualifications/experience desired of submitters and to provide guidance on how the short list will be developed. The RFQ identifies and prioritizes the desired team traits that should be addressed by each submitter’s Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Furthermore, the RFQ details the specific qualifications and experience required of the proposed key personnel for each submitter, which is to be included in the SOQ. The RFQ may require the submitters to describe their past performance in areas such as safety, schedule, budget and community satisfaction.

The RFQ submittal requirements should focus on identifying the submitters that provide the best probability of achieving or exceeding the project’s goals. In addition to the common items found in many RFQs such as a description of the project, the goals for the project, and the general procurement schedule, unique project interests and requirements tailored to desired project outcomes must be included. Therefore, the following items should be considered when developing RFQ requirements:

The project goals.
Is local design and construction experience important?
Is design-build experience important?
Are the qualifications and availability of key personnel important?
Is the long term financial stability of the team important? Generally, this needs to be considered for very large projects.
What management systems/philosophies are important, if any?
What past performance measures need to be included, if any?
What rating criteria will be used to determine the most highly qualified submitters?

It is important to develop short-listing criteria that establish a clear separation between the most highly qualified teams and all other submitters. Within the design-build industry it is generally understood that a short-listing process helps to identify, very early in the procurement process, a team (or teams) that is unlikely to be selected. This benefits those teams by preventing them from wasting their time and money competing for a project they are unlikely to be awarded. On the other hand, the short-listed teams gain a higher probability of being successful, so they are more likely to put the necessary resources into developing proposals. This typically results in higher quality teams, higher quality proposals (risk vs. reward) and a more efficient proposal review process.

It is important to minimize the duplication of information requested in both the RFQ and RFP. By doing so, the cost for each competing team is reduced and interest in the MoDOT design-build program is maintained.

139.8.1.3 Contents of the RFQ

Typically, the RFQ should include the following information:

1. Introductory Information. The RFQ includes a brief description of the project, the project goals, the estimated contract price (if known), and the completion deadline.

2. RFQ Process information. The RFQ includes a description of the procurement process, submitter requirements and the procurement schedule.

3. SOQ Contents and Evaluation Criteria. The RFQ details what information must be submitted by each submitter, including administrative elements, submitter experience information and key personnel and organization information. The heart of the RFQ is a description of the factors that will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified submitters. Examples include the experience of the major participants in similar projects, the safety records of the major participants, and the experience and qualifications of proposed key personnel (which positions and minimum qualifications are defined in the RFQ). Examples of key personnel are Project Manager, Design Manager, Construction Manager and Quality Manager.

4. Submittal Requirements. The RFQ sets forth the format for the statements of qualifications and the requirements for submittals, i.e. due date and time, number of copies, etc. and the protest procedures.

5. Evaluation Process. The RFQ describes the method the statements of qualifications will be evaluated and scored.

6. General Information.

a. The RFQ defines design-build team major participants and states that the major participants and key personnel can only be changed by the submitters with prior approval.

b. The RFQ sets forth the anticipated stipend the short-listed teams will receive if they submit a responsive proposal in response to the RFP. No stipend is paid for submitting an SOQ.

c. The RFQ includes instructions for future communications between MoDOT and the potential DB teams. For participant confidence in the process, all communication by any potential participants after the RFQ is issued should be through the Project Director and only as allowed by the RFQ.

d. The RFQ shall address the process and deadline for any and all questions or requests for clarifications, as well as the process for issuance of addenda.

e. The RFQ includes requirements related to firms that are ineligible to participate on a submitter’s team, and usually identifies firms that are working with MoDOT to prepare the procurement documents (RFP). Specifically:

i. The design-build rules provide that consultants and sub-consultants who assist the commission in the preparation of an RFP document will not be allowed to participate as an offeror (submitter) or join a team submitting a proposal in response to the RFP. However, the commission may determine that there is not conflict of interest for a consultant or subconsultant where:

Design-Build Rules: 7 CSR 10-24

1. The role of the consultant or sub-consultant was limited to provision of preliminary design, reports, or similar “low-level” documents that will be incorporated into the RFP, and did not include assistance in development of instructions to offerors or evaluation criteria, or

2. Where all documents and reports delivered to the commission by the consultant or sub-consultant are made available to all offerors.

ii. The rules further provide that all solicitations for design-build contracts, including related contracts for inspection, administration or auditing services, must direct the offeror to this section of the rules. In addition to MoDOT’s rules, on projects involving federal funds, the federal regulations have similar provisions.

Federal Design-Build rules: 23 CFR Part 636 Subpart A.

f. The RFQ should state that documents submitted in response to the RFQ will be subject to the Missouri Public Records Act, and detail procedure for marking items confidential or proprietary.

g. The RFQ sets forth the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy and the DBE goal(s) for the project and identifies where the submitters may obtain copies of a directory of DBEs. In addition to setting an overall DBE goal, separate DBE goals may be set for design services and for construction.

i. The design DBE goals are based on the percentage of DBE design consultants that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the design on the project.

ii. The construction DBE goals would be based on the percentage of DBE subcontractors that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the construction work on the project. The methodology of setting each goal should be the same that is used for design-bid-build projects, and should be requested through the Division of External Civil Rights.

h. The RFQ may also include requirements regarding the submitter’s legal structure, bonding capacity and additional financial requirements, if any. On most projects, assurance of required bonding capacity of the submitters is adequate to show financial capability. Design-Build contracts may be for larger amounts of money and in such cases, companies must have the ability to bond that amount. In the case of The New I-64, the design-build contractor teams were required to have bonding capacity of more than $400 million. The I-64 teams included national design-build companies and prime contractor and design firms from St. Louis. In this instance all of these companies made up the prime contracting team.

Forms should be provided for most of the information requested of the submitters, as follows:

A sample RFQ

i. Major Participant Information Form.

ii. Reference Project Summary Form.

iii. Resume Summary Form.

iv. Receipt of Addenda Form.

v. Statement of Existence of Organization Conflicts Form.

139.8.1.4 Industry Meeting

A sample agenda for this meeting is available

A key defining name tag colors

A blank sign-in sheet for this meeting

For most design-build projects an industry meeting is conducted, typically scheduled immediately before or after the RFQ release. The industry meeting is used to introduce the project to the design and construction industries and announce the procurement schedule for the project. Typically, the industry meeting includes an introduction of the MoDOT project team, a presentation related to the project and the RFQ and an opportunity for questions and answers. The remaining time is dedicated to an industry mixer, where prime contractors, subcontractors and professional services companies, identified by name tags, can network and have the opportunity to establish connections for the benefit of the project. Previous mixers have led to the development of submitting teams and can be very beneficial to meeting all of the project goals. To allow for further communication between consultants, sub-contractors and DBEs, the sign-in sheet is typically made public immediately following the industry meeting, by posting to the project website.

139.8.1.5 Scoring of Statements of Qualification

139.8.1.5.1 SOQ Evaluation Procedures

A confidential SOQ Evaluation Procedures document is created for each design-build project. The document includes, at a minimum, specifics related to maintaining confidentiality of the SOQs, scoring team organization and roles, scoring procedures and evaluation criteria, including compliance reviews.

139.8.1.5.2 Scoring Teams

Scoring teams are composed of appropriate staff representative of the applicable areas of expertise associated with the proposals. The Project Director works with the MoDOT project team to determine the scoring team members, which may include personnel outside of the immediate project team, and establish a scoring chairperson. Each member of the scoring team shall sign the Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3) and Conflict of Interest Form for SOQs (Form 139.8.1.5). After scoring is complete, the scoring chairperson(s) will document the scoring process and outcome in a memo (the [Final Recommendation Report]), which summarizes each team’s strengths and weakness and states the recommended short-list, to the Project Director.

139.8.1.5.3 Draft Short List Development

The short-list is restricted to no more than 5 teams and a minimum of 2; therefore, short-list selection should be intentionally crafted to differentiate between submitting teams. Appropriate rating criteria will be used to determine a maximum of five most highly qualified teams and/or demonstrate a significant separation between the most highly qualified and those meeting qualifications. An example of SOQ rating criteria used on past projects is provided below. If there is no clear numerical separation between teams, the Project Director and Executive Selection Committee (refer to EPG 139.8.1.6 Short List Approval) may, at their discretion, choose to further examine the submitting teams by requesting additional information from the teams or conducting interviews.


Score	Description
Green, Exceptional +/-, or 85-100%	The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated requirements/objectives and provides a consistently outstanding level of quality. There is very little or no risk that the submitter would fail to meet the project goals. There are essentially no weaknesses.
Yellow, Good +/-, or 60-84%	The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated requirements/objectives and offers a generally better than acceptable quality. There is little risk that the submitter would fail to meet the project goals. Weaknesses, if any, are minor.
Orange, Acceptable +/-, or 20-59%	The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated requirements/objectives and has an acceptable level of quality. The submitter demonstrates a reasonable probability of meeting the project goals. Weaknesses are minor.
Red, Unacceptable, or 0-19%	The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to fail to meet the stated requirements/objectives and/or provides unacceptable quality and/or demonstrates no reasonable likelihood of meeting the project goals and/or contains weaknesses that are major.

For the purposes of evaluating SOQs, a strength represents a part of the SOQ that ultimately represents a benefit to the project and is expected to increase the Submitter’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.

Significant strength has a considerable positive influence on the submitter’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
Minor strength has a slight positive influence on the submitter’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.

For the purposes of evaluating SOQs, a weakness represents a part of the SOQ that detracts from the submitter’s ability to meet the project goals or may result in inefficient or ineffective performance.

Significant weakness has a considerable negative influence on the submitter’s ability to meet the project goals.
Minor weakness has a slight negative influence on the submitter’s ability to meet the project goals.

139.8.1.6 Short List Approval

According to 7 CSR 10-24.030, all responses to the Request for Qualifications will be evaluated by a prequalification review/short listing team, known as the Executive Selection Committee. The Executive Selection Committee will be comprised of the following MoDOT staff or their designated representative: Chief Engineer, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer (Chief Financial Officer), Controller (Financial Services Director), Director of Program Delivery (Assistant Chief Engineer), one or more District Engineer(s), Project Director for Project, State Construction and Materials Engineer, State Bridge Engineer and the State Design Engineer. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), acting as an external partner will be an observer to the prequalification/short listing process.

After scoring in accordance with the SOQ Evaluation Procedures document, the Project Director will meet with the Executive Selection Committee to present details of all SOQs received, as well as the ratings each team received. The Executive Selection Committee report should include, at a minimum:

Confidentiality forms (Form 139.1.3)
Conflict of Interest forms (Form 139.8.1.5)
Copy of presentation
Final Recommendation Report
Scoring sheets or a summary of scoring sheets
Submitter organization charts
Project RFQ
Project SOQ Scoring Procedures
Blank Short-list Recommendation Approval for Chief Engineer’s signature
Copy of the Missouri Design-Build Statute and MoDOT Design-Build Rules

A representative from the Chief Counsel’s Office should attend this meeting to advise staff on any legal matters. Following the presentation, the Executive Selection Committee will move to approve the short list.

Once the short list is approved, all submitting teams should be notified whether or not they were short-listed. Once the teams have been notified, the short list is announced publicly, through a press release and/or posting on the project website. After the short list is announced, the project team may elect to offer debrief meetings with all submitting teams, including those that were not short-listed to provide feedback on their SOQs.

139.8.2 Request for Proposals

Once the risk assessment and risk allocation processes have been completed by the project team, or are far enough along to provide adequate guidance, the Request for Proposal (RFP), or Phase 2, documents can be developed. An RFP defines the legal, technical and selection requirements for the project. It should be noted that development of the RFP must occur concurrently with the RFQ and short listing process in order to be meet the requirements for RFP release stated in the RFQ.

139.8.2.1 Purpose and Objective of the RFP Process

There are three main objectives of the Request for Proposals process. First, the RFP provides clear, concise and flexible technical requirements that will promote a quality project and will become the contract documents. Second, the RFP provides contract terms that fairly allocate risk between MoDOT and the contractor. Last, the RFP details the contractor selection criteria that are designed to achieve or exceed the project goals. Throughout the design-build process, it is important to use the philosophy, “write what you mean, say what you mean, do what you say/write.” The result is an RFP that clearly describes and defines the “must have” requirements for the project while allowing the maximum amount of flexibility for the proposers.

To maintain flexibility in the RFP, project teams should define ONLY minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for each technical discipline. This allows each proposer to submit FHWA approved standards, specifications, designs and approaches that have been used on other projects. The proposed approaches should be approved unless there is a reason that the approach cannot apply in Missouri or in the specific project’s situation.

139.8.2.2 Request for Proposals Process (Phase 2)

Shortly after the short list developed in Phase 1 (the RFQ process) is announced for a project, the RFP is released. In order to maintain confidence in the process and to meet our obligations, it is critical to release the RFP on or before the date committed to in RFQ.

The RFP is typically released via an external SharePoint site, which set up specifically for the project. The Project Director should contact the Design-Build Coordinator or the IS department to get the site set up. The site will contain a “MoDOT” folder, where MoDOT can post information for all teams to see, as well as individual team folder for each short-listed team. Only the individual team and MoDOT can see each respective individual team folder. Once the SharePoint site is set up, each short-listed team shall be granted access to the MoDOT folder and their respective individual team folder. The SharePoint site will be used throughout the RFP (Phase 2) process to communicate with proposers, send and receive documents and to receive the proposals.

139.8.2.2.1 Optional Draft RFP

In some cases, the project team may choose to release a draft RFP in advance of the RFP release. This is known as an “industry review” and would typically be used only on very large projects or on projects using new and different procurement strategies or atypical risk assignments. The purpose of the industry review is to give the design-build industry the opportunity to voice questions or concerns in a confidential setting. Through the process, issues or unclear provisions in the draft RFP can be clarified or revised based on the feedback of the proposers. The allocations of specific risks can also be revised if the proposers provide feedback that a different allocation is more beneficial to both parties. The fact that the industry review process is a confidential process allows each proposer to candidly discuss the contents of the draft RFP without fear that their questions will be communicated to other proposers and minimizes the potential to “give away” its proposal strategies. After the draft RFP process, a “final” RFP will be issued. If a draft RFP process is pursued, the specifics and appropriate timeline should be reflected in the procurement schedule defined in the RFQ.

139.8.2.2.2 Confidential Meetings

Once the final RFP is issued, the project team will conduct one-on-one confidential meetings with each of the shortlisted design-build proposers to allow them to submit their proposed scope ideas and proposed standards and designs that have been approved on other projects. This process allows the proposers to submit alternative approaches and creative solutions for approval. The project team should provide the proposers feedback on what it values according to the project goals related to the proposals without leading the proposers to technical approaches they may prefer. The discussions with individual proposers are confidential so that proposers will be encouraged to propose innovative, cost-effective solutions.

Typically, the meetings are held at the Proposers place of business (in the same region as the project) and will be limited to a specified number of hours and times per week, usually once per week or once every-other week. The proposers establish the agendas for the meetings. The agendas for the meetings are provided to the project team at least two business days prior to each meeting so key discipline leads may attend.

The proposers may present technical solutions during the meetings. If the proposer desires, a preview of the technical concepts can be accommodated in advance of the meetings by posting the information to a secure project SharePoint site. The project team will provide verbal feedback to the Proposers on whether the proposed technical solutions achieve or exceed the project goals and meet the requirements of the RFP. Additionally, potential improvements such as Project definition changes, moving focus from one technical area to another and changes within a technical area may be identified and discussed. It is very important, however, that the playing field be kept equal for all potential bidding teams. The project team will not provide solutions to the proposers. The project team will provide consistent answers to questions in each confidential meeting to keep a level playing field.

139.8.2.2.3 Requests for Clarification

During the meetings, proposers may request clarifications to the RFP. It is important that proposers understand throughout this process that critical issues identified may require an RFP addenda, which once identified, is shared with all short listed teams and that the project team reserves the right to do so at the start of the process. The proposers may request clarifications to the RFP informally during the confidential meetings, or formally in writing. The project team may provide responses to informal requests verbally during the confidential meetings or may request that the request for clarification be submitted formally. Formal requests must be submitted on Requests for Clarification (RFC) (Form 139.8.2.2(a)). The project team will determine if its responses need to be provided to all teams, on the master RFC form or to just the requesting team. Prior to responding to all teams using the master RFC Form, the specific proposer making the request will be informed of the determination that the master RFC is required and will be provided the opportunity to withdraw the question. However, the project team must reserve the right to issue RFP addenda if an issue is raised that must be corrected. Responses to formal requests will be posted on the project's SharePoint site.

139.8.2.2.4 Additional Applicable Standards (AAS) and Design Exceptions

AASs and Design Exceptions shall be submitted by each proposer using forms provided in the RFP. AASs should be submitted using Form 139.8.2.2(b). Design exceptions must be documented on the Design Exceptions Fomm (Form 139.8.2.2(c)) and detailed on the Design Exception Information Form (Form 139.8.2.2 (d)). Proposers shall be responsible for submitting enough information about the AAS or DE so that it can be adequately evaluating. The project team should encourage submittals of AASs and DEs early in the technical discussions. The project team will provide feedback regarding the acceptability of the AASs and design exceptions either verbally during the meetings or in writing (via e-mail or the secure SharePoint site). The project team will also consult with FHWA to obtain concurrence or approval, as described in the FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement.

139.8.2.2.5 Environmental Commitments and Access Justification Reports

For some projects environmental commitments have been made prior to the RFP. In these instances it is important to document environmental commitments, and evaluate any proposed changes to the commitments. In these cases, the project team will provide a list of environmental commitments in a spreadsheet. In accordance with the RFP, a NEPA re-evaluation or revision may be required, depending on the content of each Proposal. As described in the FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement, to prepare for any potential revision, each proposer may be asked to use the Environmental Commitments Form (Form 139.8.2.2(e)) to request any commitment revisions. This form may not be necessary for all projects.

For some interstate projects, an Access Justification Report may be required. As described in the FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement, to prepare for a potential AJR revision, a proposer may be asked to submit a draft AJR revision, in advance of their proposal submittal to obtain concurrence from FHWA.

139.8.2.2.6 RFP Revisions

The RFP should be continually reviewed as it is developed and throughout the RFP process, during the industry review process, if used, after the RFP has been finalized, and during the confidential one-on-one meetings. Once the RFP is issued, the project team will issue addenda as necessary, which will be incorporated into the final contract between MoDOT and the design-build contractor. The purpose of the addenda process is to supplement and make corrections to the RFP. In the typical case when no draft RFP is issued, the addenda process can be used to clarify risk allocations or make certain contract provisions more clear. However, major changes to the RFP requirements should be avoided, especially late in the process.

139.8.2.3 RFP Documents

The RFP consists of the following documents:

Book 1 – Contract language
Book 2 – Performance requirements
Book 3 – Applicable standards
Book 4 – Contract drawings, documents and reports
Book 5 – Informational (or reference) documents
Instructions to Proposers (ITP)

Normally, Books 3, 4 and 5 simply include an index of referenced documents. However, if these referenced documents are not generally available, MoDOT should place them on the project SharePoint site or make copies of each and provide them to the short-listed proposers.

A sample RFP is available.

Books 1-4 and the accepted proposal are combined to create the official contract, once the project is awarded and the final negotiations process is complete. Book 5 is for information only and not contractual.

139.8.2.3.1 Book 1

The purpose of Book 1 (also referred to as the “contract”) is to define the legal parameters of the design-build contract and to provide for flexibility for the design-build contractor. The requirements for payment, change orders, project acceptance and dispute resolution are included here. This book designates the areas where, after award of the contract, the design-build contractor has the flexibility to propose cost-savings changes to the contract requirements that are equal to or better than the technical requirements. Additionally, this book distinguishes the specific areas where cost savings proposals are treated as value engineering proposals. Book 1 is fairly standard and does not typically change much from project to project, except for insurance amounts, mobilization payments, liquidated damages, escrow requirements or other project specific values.

A critical exhibit to Book 1 is the definitions exhibit, applicable to all of the RFP documents. Many definitions in the RFP are unique to the Design-Build process and have been changed from the traditional design-bid-build definitions to conform to the risk allocation decisions that have been made for the project. In order to understand the technical requirements of the RFP, it is necessary to understand the applicable definitions.

Examples of areas included in Book 1 include:

1. A description of the contract documents and how they are to be interpreted, e.g., order of precedence of the books included in the contract documents, federal requirements, project deadlines, and definitions applicable to all of the RFP documents.

2. A description of the legal obligations of the design-build contractor, including performance of all of the work in accordance with the RFP requirements and responsibility for final design.

3. Information supplied to the Design-Build contractor and the legal significance of the information.

4. Requirements for notice to proceed (NTP), scheduling and project completion. A provision that is unique to the design-build process is issuance of a notice-to proceed that allows the Design-Build contractor to begin construction of the project only after submitting a cost-loaded schedule that is necessary for MoDOT to make monthly progress payments to the design-build contractor as the work progresses. Another unique provision is that there are two NTPs on design-build. The first NTP releases the contractor to begin design. The second NTP releases the contractor to begin construction.

5. Change order procedures, including right of way and utility work that are added or deleted from the scope of the design-build contractor’s work in the RFP. Design-Build RFPs include the traditional value engineering change proposal provisions, however, a unique concept that has been developed to give the design-build contractors flexibility is the “Equal or Better” process, which allows the design-build contractor to propose innovative, cost-saving solutions in lieu of the RFP requirements. As long as these proposed solutions are equal to or better than the requirements of the RFP, the design-build contractor realizes the cost savings from using the alternatives.

6. DBE, EEO, subcontractor, labor requirements and key personnel requirements. The DBE requirements are modified for the design-build process, since the Design-Build contractor does not have the final design when it submits its proposal and therefore it cannot name all of its DBEs at the time of the proposal. The key personnel concept allows certain key personnel positions to be defined. Once identified by the Design-Build contractor, the contractor must obtain approval before replacing personnel in a key personnel position.

7. Surety bond, insurance, maintenance responsibilities, suspension, termination, default, damages and indemnification provisions.

8. Partnering and dispute resolution provisions.

9. Miscellaneous legal requirements, including provisions related to acceptance, warranties, document requirements, and cooperation and coordination with others.

10. The process for distributing the stipend to unsuccessful but responsive proposers. The stipend payment transfers ownership of ideas and intellectual property of both the successful and qualifying unsuccessful proposers. As described in the design-build rules, the stipend amount determination may consider: (A) Project scope; (B) Substantial opportunity for innovation; (C) The cost of submitting a proposal; (D) Encouragement of competition; (E) Compensate unsuccessful proposers for a portion of their costs (usually one-third to one-half (1/3 to 1/2) of the estimated proposal development cost); and (F) Ensure that smaller companies are not put at a competitive disadvantage.

139.8.2.3.2 Book 2

Book 2 provides the project specific technical requirements of the RFP. The purpose of the technical requirements is to define the “box” that the design-build contractor needs to stay within in designing and building the project. To invite innovation, the technical requirements should be as flexible as possible to maximize the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals. However, if there are specific items that are absolutely required as part of the project, those should be specifically identified. Book 2 can also include items not typically found in any state specifications but could be considered special provisions to a particular project, such as environmental requirements, third party agreement requirements or public information requirements.

In preparing the technical requirements, standard operating requirements and procedures may be modified, where appropriate, to better fit the flexible design-build process and conform to the risk allocation decisions applicable to the project. Requirements detailed in third party agreements shall be negotiated with the third party as required to further define the minimum applicable requirements. Although difficult, an objective of Book 2 is to balance defining the minimum acceptable requirements applicable to the project while providing the design-build contractor with the maximum flexibility possible.

This book outlines deliverables, the timing of them, and whether items are for approval or not.

The general technical areas that are addressed in Book 2 include:

1. Basic Configuration. The basic configuration provides the overview of the final product, or what the project will achieve when it is completed. It is a concept of the “envelope” of right of way and physical requirements that the design-build contractor will have to design and construct the project. The basic configuration is usually based upon the design in the environmental documents prepared for FHWA approval of the project. However, if no design of this nature exists or if the environmental document design does not adequately define the “envelope”, the basic configuration may be based upon design work performed specifically for this purpose. MoDOT typically uses broadly defined basic configuration definitions to promote design flexibility, and does not include preliminary design requirements.

The purpose of the Basic Configuration definition is to define the degree of design flexibility provided to the design-build contractor and the degree to which the design–build contractor can rely upon the owner-supplied preliminary design included in the Request for Proposals (RFP).

In order to provide the design-builder with the most design flexibility, any owner-supplied preliminary design work should be provided for “information only”. By doing this, the design-build contractor is not required to follow the preliminary design but, in return, cannot rely upon the preliminary design documents included in the RFP. Since there usually are key project components that are identified in the preliminary design that form the foundation of a project’s scope, the MoDOT project team could choose to include those key project components in a basic configuration definition and thereby make the referenced components contract requirements.

The basic configuration concept serves the following purposes:

a. It allows the MoDOT project team to define the minimum requirements or “must have” project components.

b. It defines the basic elements of the project from which the Design-Build contractor may not deviate without an Project Director approved change order.

c. It defines which elements of the preliminary design, if any, are contract requirements.

d. It allows the MoDOT project team to define the degree of flexibility provided to the design-build contractor in its design of major project elements, usually referred to as the “design window”.

e. It allows the Design-Build contractor to incorporate changes to the provided preliminary design within the defined “design window” which establishes design flexibility.

f. It gives the Design-Build contractor the flexibility to optimize their proposed design.

The contract documents contain provisions restricting the design-build contractor from making changes to the basic configuration without owner approval. Additionally, provisions address that if the basic configuration is not constructible, the owner will pay the design-build contractor’s costs of correcting or addressing the problem. Therefore, the more defined the basic configuration, the more risk MoDOT assumes.

Examples of Basic Configuration definitions on MoDOT design-build Projects are available.

The Basic Configuration definition usually includes a general description of the project termini, right of way limits, the general types and locations of interchanges and the numbers of lanes and lane widths. MoDOT’s approach is to limit the basic configuration definition to the minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for the project, e.g., right of way limitations based on intergovernmental agreements.

2. Project Management. The project management performance requirements include the invoicing, scheduling and co-location requirements necessary to manage the project.

3. Quality Management. Defines the quality management performance requirements for the project, including required Quality Manual information, materials management and quality oversight.

4. Public Information. The public information performance requirements may define the responsibilities for the design-build contractor in regards to certain communication efforts, including the timelines for requests for information and emergency situations.

5. Environmental Requirements. This section defines the minimum environmental performance requirements for the project, typically outlined from the approved project environmental documents.

6. Third Party Agreements. This section includes a summary of third party agreements and related minimum performance requirements including finalized and future agreements.

7. Utility Relocations. Since the final design is not known at the time of the proposal, a master utility agreement that defines the processes that the utility owner, MoDOT and the design-build contractor will follow is typically required. This section includes performance requirements regarding utility tracking reporting and the work order process.

8. Right of Way. This section communicates performance requirements regarding right of way, including rules and risk allocations for additional acquisitions, if needed.

9. Survey. Provides survey control and datum performance requirements and other survey performance requirements.

10. Geotechnical and Earthwork. This section details the geotechnical report and assigns risk regarding provided geotechnical borings.

11. Signing, Pavement Marking and Lighting. This section provides minimum performance requirements for signing, pavement markings and lighting.

12. Drainage. This section provides minimum performance requirements for drainage.

13. Roadways and Pavements. This section provides minimum performance requirements for roadways and pavements, including AJR, local road, driveway and bicycle and pedestrian requirements.

14. Signals and Intelligent Transportation Systems (Traffic Management Systems). This section provides minimum performance requirements for traffic management systems.

15. Structures. This section provides minimum performance requirements for structures.

16. Maintenance of Traffic. This section provides minimum performance requirements for the maintenance of traffic plan, traffic control plans and detours.

17. Maintenance during Construction. This section provides minimum performance requirements for maintenance during construction and assigns risk for project maintenance during the design-build contract.

18. Optional sections. Project specific topics such as performance requirements for landscaping, aesthetics or safety can be included in this section.

19. Modifications to Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. While most of the standard specifications and special provisions are applicable to Design-Build projects, some of them must be modified in some manner to reflect the design-build process. As an example, the price adjustments for nonconforming but acceptable work are applicable to design-build projects, but design-build projects have no unit prices that are contemplated in the standard specifications. Therefore, if price adjustments are used for the project, the specification or special provision should be modified for the design-build process.

139.8.2.3.3 Book 3

Book 3 includes the applicable standards. In addition to the applicable standards, which include industry standards such as AASHTO and FHWA manuals and standards, the proposers can propose alternate FHWA approved standards, specifications and requirements. Additionally, the proposers has the option of using MoDOT’s standards, specifications and requirements as a baseline and proposing alternative standards for specific portions of the project. The additional or alternate standards ultimately approved are referred to as “Additional Applicable Standards (AASs).”

Book 3 documents provide the design-build contractor the requirements that cannot be modified except through a value engineering and/or design exception process. As such, the risk of changes to Book 3 documents rest upon the design-build contractor. If standards or specifications in Book 3 are amended after the proposals have been submitted at MoDOT’s request, MoDOT assumes the risk associated with these changes.

Book 3 documents include the federal standards and requirements applicable to all projects and the contractor’s proposed standards, requirements and specifications. For example, AASHTO standards, ANSI standards, FHWA guidelines and MoDOT or other DOT and FHWA applicable design standards are included in Book 3. Even with the flexible design-build model, design-build contractor teams still have to meet quality & safety laws and requirements (federal and state). Since design manuals have been written as internal, guidance documents they must be reviewed to ensure that their provisions are enforceable, either by incorporating enforceable requirements in Book 2 or by making revisions to the manuals in Book 3.

139.8.2.3.4 Book 4

The purpose of Book 4 is to provide the design-build contractor with the data, reports and studies for which MoDOT guarantees the accuracy and assumes the risk for any necessary changes. Book 4 documents typically include the project right of way plans and any requirements from which the Design-Build contractor cannot deviate, such as architectural requirements that are applicable to the project’s corridor. Specific sections of Book 2 are used to clarify the risk assignment of documents in Book 4.

Some examples of Book 4 documents include third party agreements (those between MoDOT and an entity other than the design-build contractor) that the design-build contractor will be required to comply with, permits obtained for the project, and applicable NEPA environmental documents. Book 4 may also include geotechnical or hydrological data, studies and reports, if the project team decides during the risk assessment/risk allocation process that the accuracy can be guaranteed. The most important analysis to perform is a determination of which of the documents it will accept the risk of accuracy (Book 4, contract drawings, data and reports) and which will be provided to the Design-Build contractor for information only (as reference documents in Book 5).

139.8.2.3.5 Book 5 (For Information Only)

The fifth group of documents in the RFP process is “reference documents”, which are informational only. The sole purpose of the reference documents is to provide the proposers with as much information as possible without guaranteeing the accuracy of the documents.

Reference documents might include any preliminary reports or design documents that have been prepared for the project that are not included in any other book. The reference documents are provided to the design-build contractor for information only, and the contractor is not entitled to a change order for any errors or omissions in them.

139.8.2.3.6 Instructions to Proposers (ITP)

The purpose of the ITP is to define the expectations for the form and contents of the proposals and to describe the criteria that will be used for scoring. Specifying the format of the proposals ensures that the proposals will be uniform and easily comparable. Additionally, a uniform and consistent format focuses the proposers on the substantive contents of their proposals.

The ITP provides instructions on the required form and content of the proposals, as well as how to propose alternatives to the project scope and standards, specifications and requirements detailed in the proposal. Additionally, the ITP includes a description of the criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals and the formula or methods used to score them.

The prioritized evaluation criteria provides insight to proposers on how to best meet the project goals. With well-defined scoring criteria, it should be evident how the scoring criteria relates to the project goals. The inclusion of this evaluation criteria is required by MoDOT statute and rules.

Examples of scoring criteria used on design-build Projects are available.

139.8.2.3.6.1 Contractor Selection Criteria

139.8.2.3.6.1.1 Purpose and Objective of the Selection Criteria

The selection criteria define not only how the proposals are going to be evaluated, but provide insight to the proposers about the relative importance of the various elements of the project and project goals. The primary objectives in developing the selection criteria is to demonstrate what requirements are most important, and to determine what criteria will help identify the best value proposal. The selection criteria are provided in the ITP in order to assist the proposers in tailoring their proposals to best meet the project goals. Additionally, the ITP identifies the rules for the proposal process, such as how clarifications will be addressed, what communication will be allowed, what conflict of interest rules are applicable, and what laws and procedural requirements are applicable.

139.8.2.3.6.1.2 Selection Criteria Process Options

Pursuant to the design-build rules, the selection criteria options on a standard Design-Build selection include: lowest price, adjusted low-bid; meets criteria/low bid; weighted criteria process; fixed price/best design or “build to budget”; and best value.

1. The “lowest price, adjusted low-bid” procedure is a process where the price of each proposal is divided by the respective proposals qualitative criteria score, and the lowest adjusted price is selected.

2. The “meets criteria/low bid” procedure is a process where proposals must meet or exceed the criteria set forth in the RFP to be eligible and of the eligible proposals, the lowest priced proposal is selected.

3. The “weighted criteria” process is a form of best value selection where maximum point values are pre-established for both qualitative and price criteria, and the award is made to the proposal with the highest point score.

4. The “build to budget” selection is a form of the best value selection where the contract price is fixed, the qualitative criteria is set forth in the RFP, and the proposal that best meets or exceeds the qualitative criteria is selected.

5. The best value selection is determined based on which proposal best meets a combination of price and qualitative criteria.

The criteria that will be used to evaluate the “best value” for MoDOT on all of the above five processes are set forth in the Instructions to Proposers (ITP), which is issued simultaneously with the RFP. Pursuant to the design-build rules, the ITP will clearly specify all factors and significant sub-factors and their relative importance that will be used to select the proposal that provides the best value. The factors and sub factors should reflect the goals of the project.

139.8.2.3.6.1.3 Selection Criteria Process Method Selection

The ITP will indicate the method that will be used to evaluate the selection criteria. The selection criteria should be focused on the identifying the proposal that best meets or exceeds the project’s goals. There are a number of common items found in many ITPs such as a description of the project, the RFP documents, the estimated cost of the project, the procurement schedule, the goals for the project, and the general procurement process, including the industry review procedure (if used). The selection criteria for each project should be unique and tailored to the desired outcome. While most of the following example issues are important, when developing the selection criteria, MoDOT will need to rank these and other project-specific criteria to determine which selection criteria process will best meet the project goals.

What are the project goals?
Are there public involvement needs with the project?
How critical is inconvenience to the public important?
Would the project benefit from local design and construction experience?
How critical is a contractor’s design-build experience?
Are there environmental compliance needs?
How critical is the budget?
Would the project benefit from contractor partnering?
How critical is the schedule?
Is the contractor’s approach to quality management important?
Would the project benefit by providing additional flexibility to the contractor?
Are there critical management systems/philosophies?

The selection criteria should communicate the expectations and desires for the project while being in line with the project goals. When developing proposal scoring criteria, it is also important to ask, “How will this be scored?” to ensure the information requested in the RFP can be evaluated fairly in a short amount of time.

139.8.2.3.6.2 Contents of the Instructions to Proposers

The ITP should include a description of the definitions applicable to the proposals, the project goals, the maximum contract price, and the Basic Configuration (or “envelope”) available for the project. Many of the items described in the ITP may cross-reference the RFP.

The ITP should specify which contractor team members are considered “Major Participants”. These members will need to supply required information such as bonds and federal and state required certifications.” Since many proposing teams are joint ventures and these joint venture will only exist as related to the project, commitments and information are needed for the larger members of the joint venture teams.

The ITP will also include a description of the proposal process, which provides for communications, industry review, discussions with proposers regarding their innovative ideas, submission of draft and final proposals and AASs. Confidential proposal discussions are used to provide the proposers with a maximum amount of flexibility while maintaining the requirements in the RFP.

The ITP includes a format, or outline, for the proposals. As part of the format, it is beneficial to include as many forms as possible so it is clearly understood what information and in what form the proposal should be submitted.

The critical element in the ITP is a description of how the proposals will be evaluated (the selection criteria). While the project team has broad discretion to determine the evaluation factors, budget and the quality of the service will always be included as factors for design-build projects. The specific rating method or combination of methods is clearly specified in the ITP, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankings.

The ITP should include the bonding requirements including the amount and the format for the bonds. Additionally, it should require the proposers to submit a detailed plan for meeting the project DBE goal or goals for design and construction. The evaluation of the proposals must be based solely on the factors and subfactors listed in the ITP.

The ITP should specify exactly what information is needed to evaluate the proposals. For example, the ITP may ask for the proposing team’s approach to quality management, and then may specify that the team needs to submit its approach and commitments to quality policy, planning, assurance, control and improvement. (As the best-value proposal becomes contractual, experience has shown that it is beneficial to require commitments from the proposers as well as approaches.)

The ITP should include a list of required forms and reports that must be submitted with the proposals for evaluations. These forms represent the proposer’s commitments and will be contractual.

A sample ITP is available.

The evaluation criteria should specify which criteria are pass-fail and how the remaining factors will be weighted. Weighting of the factors can be based on factors or can be broken down to subfactors.

139.8.2.4 Authorization to Release RFP

Authorization to advertise and release the RFP document must be provided by FHWA. The project authorization given by FHWA will not be issued until the following are accomplished:

Details on project authorization are available in the FHWA/MoDOT Design-Build Program Agreement

FHWA Approval of the RFP
Project Certification
Approval of Project Financial Plan, if required.

FHWA Approval to Release the RFP

Following FHWA’s approval of the RFP, submittal of the written certification and review or approval of the project FP, the project must be approved by FHWA in the Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS), FHWA’s financial database. The FMIS approval/authorization will constitute FHWA approval to release the RFP.

139.8.2.5 Proposal Evaluations

When the final proposals and price allocations are received, the price allocations will be separated from the proposals and will not be opened until completion of the proposal evaluations. Before proposal evaluations begin, the proposal documents undergo a compliance review to ensure the proposal is a complete, responsive proposal. Pursuant to state statute, at least two responsive proposals must be received in order to award the design-build contract.

A confidential Proposal Evaluation Procedures document shall be created for each design-build project. The document shall include details of maintaining confidentiality of the proposals, scoring team organization and roles, scoring procedures and evaluation criteria, including compliance reviews. Each member of the scoring team shall sign the Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3) and the Proposal Conflict of Interest Form( Form 139.8.2.5). Past experience has shown that holding preparation meetings with each scoring team in advance of receiving the proposals is very beneficial. Teams should be reminded that the rating method specified in the ITP must be used. After scoring is complete, The Project Director, with input from evaluation team members if needed, will prepare a Final Recommendation Report.

An example of proposal rating criteria used on past projects is below.


Rating	Description
Exceptional +/–	The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated requirements/objectives and provides a consistently outstanding level of quality. There is little or no risk that the proposer would fail to significantly exceed the project goals. This rating is worth 85% – 100% of the available points.
Good +/–	The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated requirements/objectives and offers a generally better than acceptable quality. There is little risk that the proposer would fail to exceed the project goals. This rating is worth 60% – 84% of the available points.
Acceptable +/–	The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated requirements/objectives and has an acceptable level of quality. There is little risk that the proposer would fail to meet the project goals. This rating is worth 20% – 59% of the available points.
Poor	The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to fail to meet the stated requirements/objectives and/or provides unacceptable quality and/or demonstrates little reasonable likelihood of meeting the project goals. This rating is worth 0% – 19% of the available points.
NOTE: As used above +/– delineates the proposer’s rating within the related rating (i.e., + shall be considered as high within the rating and – shall be considered as low within the rating).

For the purposes of evaluating proposals, a strength represents a part of the proposal that ultimately represents a benefit to the project and is expected to increase the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.

Significant strength has a considerable positive influence on the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
Minor strength has a slight positive influence on the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.

For the purposes of evaluating Proposals, a weakness represents a part of the proposal that detracts from the proposer’s ability to meet the project goals or may result in inefficient or ineffective performance.

Significant weakness has a considerable negative influence on the proposer’s ability to meet the project goals.
Minor weakness has a slight negative influence on the proposer’s ability to meet the project goals.

139.8.2.6 Proposal Selection and Project Award

After proposal evaluations are complete, a proposal is selected and the Final Recommendation Report is generated. This report, often in the form of a presentation, should include information on the scoring criteria, including the relationship between the scoring criteria and the project goals, a detailed synopsis of Proposals received and scoring outcomes for each category.

The Project Director will present the Final Recommendation Report to the Executive Recommendation Committee, which may includes the Director of Transportation, Chief Engineer, Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Chief Engineer and District Engineer. Additionally, FHWA and Chief Counsel’s Office should be represented at the meeting. Please note that each member of the Executive Recommendation Committee shall sign a Proposal Conflict of Interest Form (Form 139.8.2.5) and, if not previously signed, the Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3).

The Executive Recommendation Committee will consider the supporting information and recommendation and will select the final apparent best value proposal, which will be presented to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC) in closed session. The MHTC will consider the supporting information and final recommendation and will select the best value proposal. Upon selection, concurrence of the award shall be obtained from FHWA before the award is announced publicly.

Upon final selection of the best value proposal, all proposers should be notified whether or not they will be recommended as the best value proposer for the project. The best value proposer should be asked to attend the public MHTC meeting in person. At the public MHTC meeting, the Project Director will request the MHTC’s approval of the award and approval to negotiate the contract and pay the project stipend to the losing proposers. Once the project has been awarded, the best value proposal should be announced through a press release and/or posting on the project website. Typically, a news conference has been held following the MHTC meeting to discuss the project details with the media in the project area. The need for a news conference will be dependent on the size of the project and/or public interest in the project.

Project Stipends

After the project award is announced, the project team may elect to offer debriefing meetings to all proposing teams, including those that did not submit the best-value proposal, to give feedback on their proposals. As described in the RFP, the stipend distribution process is followed. Each losing team must sign a Stipend Release Form (Form 139.8.2.6) before receiving a stipend for their proposal. Once the Stipend Release Form has been completed and the stipend paid, the Commission retains the right to use ideas from both successful and unsuccessful proposers. Proposers submitting non-responsive proposals are not eligible for payment of the stipend.

139.8.2.7 Contract Negotiations

The contract will be finalized through a negotiation process. If no final agreement is reached between MoDOT and the proposer with the apparent best value proposal, MoDOT reserves the right to pay the stipend to the apparent successful proposer and to negotiate a contract with another proposer with the second highest score. Confidentiality remains critical until all stipends are paid and the contract executed.

During contract negotiations, the proposer with the best value proposal may review the other submitted proposals once the stipends have been paid. Ideas from the other proposals may be negotiated and incorporated into the best value proposal with concurrence of the winning proposer.

139.9 Contract Execution

139.9.1 Project Management

Once a design-build contractor has been selected and a contract has been executed, there are several procedures that the project team can implement to help ensure success on the project. Effective processes will vary depending on the design-build contractor involved, the size of the project team and the size and complexity of the project. However, it is important to continue to live the design-build values throughout the contract, focusing on “what the contract says” and always evaluating "want vs. need."

After the contractor has been selected, the project management team should meet on a weekly basis and discuss the progress of partnering with the contractor. Ideally, the project team and the contractor team will be co-located and will have scheduled weekly meetings. The weekly meetings should be focused on managing delivery of the project, addressing any issues and maintaining the goals of the project.

A partnering charter and process between MoDOT and the contractor is essential to a successful project. The charter establishes the general ground rules and processes which will be used as the two teams work together to deliver the project. However, the MoDOT project team must remember that the contractor must comply with the terms of the contract documents above all else. A common mistake on previous projects has been the failure to distinguish between contract compliance and being a “good partner.” While on all projects there are times that it is appropriate to be flexible with a resolution to a specific problem, with design-build it is critical that the contractor complies with the terms of the contract documents.

It is often useful to have regular task force meetings where the MoDOT, the designer and the contractor discuss the progress being made, and resolve issues or disagreement as they occur. Specific disciplines that may benefit from task forces meetings include roadway, drainage, structures, maintenance of traffic, quality and utilities. MoDOT would then use internal management meetings with the project team to discuss any outstanding issues or conflicts identified in the task force meetings. Based upon the contract, responses are prepared and provided to the contractor team to resolve the issues in a timely fashion.

Since each design-build project and each design-build contractor are different, project teams are encouraged to try to be flexible in the approach to the various processes. However, experience has shown that for items such as change orders, potential disputes, and responses to the contractor, the more defined the internal processes are the smoother the project will proceed.

139.9.2 Contract Invoicing and Payment

Progress payments will be based on an estimate of physical percent complete of the work, not on measured quantities (except where specifically stated in the contract). Progress payment amounts are calculated by multiplying the percent complete for each construction activity by the cost associated with that activity. Monthly invoices are reviewed based on the contractor provided Work Breakdown Structure and Baseline Schedule or Recovery Schedule, as defined in the contract documents. After the invoice has been reviewed and approved by the project team, it must be submitted electronically to Financial Services at Contractual.Payments@modot.mo.gov. The invoice submittal should include the following:

Project Name
Project Number
Copy of the approved contractor invoice
Invoice number
Payment amount
Total payment amount to date.

139.9.3 Quality Oversight (Owner Acceptance)

MoDOT will use an audit approach for assessing the contractor’s performance. This will entail checking on a sampling basis whether the Work is complying with the requirements of the contract documents.

A sample Quality Oversight Plan is available.

At the completion of the project, MoDOT is required by 23 CFR Part 637 to provide a materials certification for the project. The certification will conform in substance to Appendix A of 23 CFR Part 637 Subpart B. The certification will be prepared and submitted at the project level by persons intimately familiar with the project. The basis for the materials certification will be upon implementation of a quality assurance program meeting the criteria of 23 CFR Part 637.

An FHWA Technical Brief regarding construction quality assurance for design-build highway projects]] is available.

139.10 Other Design-Build Procedures

139.10.1 Project Reporting

Typically, design-build Project Directors are asked to attend the monthly Major Projects Meeting. The Major Projects Meeting is an opportunity to update executive leadership on the project and discuss any potential project issues or concerns. If a specific topic is confidential, a separate meeting should be set up with executive leadership. Examples of items that can be discussed are:

Project progress
Schedule
Budget/Finances
Risk Allocation
Procurement, right of way or legal needs
Quality
Safety
DBE
Project look ahead

139.10.2 Design-Build Project Funding

139.10.2.1 Program Budget and Project Coding

Establishing an accurate program budget is critical to a successful design-build project. At a minimum, the following costs should be considered when setting the project budget:

Consultants (working for MoDOT, outside the design-build contract)
Project administration
Utility relocations
Stipends
Right of Way
Environmental mitigation
Internal staff
Design-Build contract (contractor design, administration and quality oversight should be considered as well as construction costs. By breaking out the design, administration and quality costs, the dollar value of actual construction can be estimated. For the sake of the program budget, this cost does not need to be broken out, but it is helpful to include when running scenarios of what may be proposed.)
Funding from Other Sources (FFOS) should be included on the SIMS form. In the event that FFOS is added into the design-build contract via change order, the project team shall provide the change order information to Transportation Planning and Financial Services.

All project costs are included in the STIP. The district submits the information to transportation planning including the total cost and an itemized breakdown of each cost included. Typically, project costs are broken down as follows:

Construction costs include the design-build contract, non-contractual (other costs), MoDOT funded utility relocations and stipend payments (Misc.),
ROW is MoDOT funded right of way acquisition (including easements),

A matrix for coding design-build projects is avaialable

Consultants outside of the design-build contract should be in the DBC budget or the district’s STIP construction budget,
The PE phase should only be used for internal staff costs,
In some cases there may be preliminary engineering and/ or consultants set up prior to the project being selected for design-build, resulting in multiple project numbers included with the P phase. In this case, the district should provide a preliminary budget spreadsheet for the Financial Services Projects and Accounts Receivable Sections. Based on prior costs and how they fit in the project budget, Financial Services assesses what project numbers are needed and communicates back to the district.

139.10.2.2 Project Financial Plan

The project Financial Plan (FP) shall be developed in conformance with FHWA guidance. The following are guidelines for when an FP is required:

Projects with program costs under $100 million do not require an FP.
Projects with program costs over $100 million but less than $500 million require an FP. No FHWA approval of the FP is required, but FHWA review of the FP is required. Approval of the project FP will be provided by the Chief Financial Officer, or the CFO’s representative.
Projects with program costs over $500 million require FHWA review and approval of the FP.

139.10.3 File Storage Structure

To maintain consistency in design-build projects, project teams should set up their electronic file storage as shown in the Document Structure Template.

Many design-build files are confidential, requiring the project SharePoint site to have access restricted to those members of the project team. Some folders can be given “read” or “contribute” access on an as needed basis for other staff assisting the project team.

139.10.4 Procurement Schedule

The design-build procurement process typically takes about 6-8 months, but it can be shorter or longer depending on the size and complexity of the project. If a team opts to do an Industry Review, the process will take about 3-4 months longer. A typical procurement schedule is below:

Advertise for Letters of Interest (30 Days)
Issue RFQ/Hold industry meeting
SOQs due (2 weeks)
Shortlist teams (2 weeks)
Issue RFP (Immediately after shortlist)
Technical discussions (2-3 months)
Proposals due
Best Value Recommendation and award (4 weeks from proposal submittal)
Final negotiations, stipend payouts (4-6 weeks)
Execute contract/NTP 1
NTP 2 (approximately 3 months after NTP 1)

When developing a detailed procurement schedule, teams should look at the time it will take to develop the contract documents. Teams should include document review times in the detailed schedule to ensure enough time is allowed for the required reviews. A best practice is to talk with FHWA and Design's Environmental Studies section when developing the project schedule, so they can anticipate required resources. See the FHWA/MoDOT Design-Build Program Agreement for topic specific review times.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[image:139 Daniel Boone.jpg|left|280px|thumb|<center>'''[http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/major_projects/BooneBridgeDesign-BuildInformation.htm I-64 Daniel Boone Design-Build Procurement Information]'''</center>]]
+[[image:139.jpg|right|510px]]
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:9px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="310px" align="right"
+Design-Build is a project delivery method in which the design and construction services are contracted by a single entity.  Design-Build provides a single point of responsibility in the contract in an attempt to reduce project risk, shorten the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project and minimize overall project costs. The selection of the design-build contractor is based on qualifications of the proposed teams and the overall best value of each proposal based on the established end result goals of the project.
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="510px" align="right"
 |-
-|'''Examples'''
+|width="248" style="background:#BEBEBE" |'''Helpful Documents''' ||width="9"| || width="248" style="background:#BEBEBE" |'''Helpful Links'''
 |-
-|[[media:139.1.2.3 Risk Assessment Worksheet Example.pdf|Risk Assessment Worksheet]]
+| [[media:139 DB Values.pdf|Design-Build Values]]|| ||[http://www.modot.org/business/consultant_resources/DesignBuildInformation.htm MoDOT Design-Build website]
 |-
-|[[media:139.1.2.3 Risk Allocation example.doc|Risk Allocation/Decision Matrix]]
+|[[media:139 Commission Chief Engineer Authority Example.pdf|Commission Chief Engineer Authority Example]]|| ||[http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/7csr/7c10-24.pdf 7 CSR 10-24]
 |-
-|[[media:139.1.3 White Paper Example.doc|White Paper Example]]
+|[[media:139 Sample Project Goals.pdf|Sample Project Goals]]|| ||[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title23-vol1/xml/CFR-2013-title23-vol1-part636.xml 23 CFR Part 636]
 |-
-|[[media:139.1.4.3 KCIcon RFQ Example.pdf|kcicon RFQ]]
+|[[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement]]|| ||[http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299/2270000107.HTM Missouri Design-Build Statue 227.107]
 |-
-|
+|[[media:139 Design Build Process Checklist.pdf|Design-Build Process Checklist]]|| ||[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/12039/12039.pdf FHWA Quality Tech Brief]
-|}
+|-
+|[[media:139 Acronyms.pdf|Design-Build Acronyms]]|| ||
+|-
-Design - build is a contractor procurement and project delivery method that combines both the design and construction phase into one contract, thus allowing these phases to proceed concurrently, while saving both time and resources.  [http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/consultant_resources/DesignBuildInformation.htm Design - build] is a particularly effective tool for typically complex projects that call for innovation and speed of completion.  It has been used in building construction for a number of years, however it is a relatively new approach being used in the transportation industry.
+|[[media:139 Project Advertisement Example.pdf|Project Advertisement Example]]|| ||style="background:#BEBEBE" |'''Forms'''
-[[image:139 Manchester Trafficway.jpg|right|320px|thumb|<center>'''[http://www.modot.org/kansascity/major_projects/ManchesterBridgeatI-70.htm Information about replacing I-70 bridges over the Manchester Trafficway]'''</center>]]
-Design - build contracts are typically for larger amounts of money and companies must have the ability to bond that amount.  In the case of I-64, we asked the Design - build teams to have bonding capacity of more than $400 million.  The I-64 teams  included national design-build companies and prime contractor and design firms from St. Louis.  All of these companies make up the prime contracting team.
-==139.1 Procurement Process==
-===139.1.1 Project Goals===
-Setting goals for the project is a very important step of the design-build delivery process. Establishing well defined project goals as the first step for any project delivery analysis will provide the necessary success standards to measure against at each phase of project delivery.  Ultimately, the measure of any project’s success is how well the project met or exceeded the established project goals.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
 |-
-|HOW WILL THE PROJECT BE DELIVERED?
+|[[media:139 I 64 RFQ.pdf|I-64 RFQ]] || || [[media:139.1.3.doc|139.1.3 Confidentiality Agreement]]
-|}
-The well-defined project definition/environmental documentation process primarily focuses on a project’s end result – what the project will look like when completed.  In contrast, project delivery goal setting focuses on how the project will be delivered – the conditions that define “during-construction” excellence. The challenge is to develop multifaceted, measurable project goals that capture all key stakeholders’ definition of project delivery success.
-====139.1.1.1 Purpose and Objective of Project Goal-Setting====
-MoDOT’s goals for a particular project will be the basis from which the project delivery/procurement method will be determined and the project specific procurement requirements will be developed. Refined project-specific goals allow decision-makers to
-evaluate the advantages and challenges of various procurement methods and select a project delivery method that provides the best opportunity to meet or exceed the established project goals. Some advantages and challenges to consider
-during the project delivery analysis are:
-{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
 |-
-|<u>Advantages</u>||width="20"| ||<u> Challenges</u>
+|[[media:139 Industry Meeting Agenda Example.pdf|Industry Meeting Agenda Example]] || || [[media:139.8.1.xls|139.8.1 Review Comment and Response Sheet (RCRS)]]
 |-
-|Design/Construction Industry Collaboration|| ||New MoDOT Roles
+|[[media:139 Industry Meeting Name Tag Key.pdf|Industry Meeting Name Tag Key]] || ||[[media:139.8.1.5.doc|139.8.1.5 SOQ Conflict of Interest Form]]
 |-
-|Innovation || ||Industry Learning-curve
+| [[media:139 Industry Meeting Sign in Sheet.docx|Industry Meeting Blank Sign-in Sheet]] || || [[media:139.8.2.2(a).xls|139.8.2.2(a) Request for Clarification (RFC) Form]]
 |-
-|Project Delivery Time Savings || ||Third-party Process Changes
+| [[media:139 I 64 RFP.pdf|I-64 RFP]] || ||[[media:139.8.2.2(b).xls|139.8.2.2 (b) Additional Applicable Standard (AAS) Form]]
 |-
-|Increased Cost Efficiencies|| ||MoDOT D/B/B Process Changes
+| [[media:139 Sample Basic Configurations.pdf|Sample Basic Configurations]] || ||[[media:139.8.2.2(c).xls|139.8.2.2 (c) Design Exception Form]]
 |-
-|Quality Improvement|| ||Institutional Changes
+| [[media:139 Sample Scoring Criteria.pdf|Sample Scoring Criteria]] || ||[[media:139.8.2.2(d).docx|139.8.2.2(d) Design Exception Information Form]]
 |-
-|Greater Contractor Accountability|| ||
+| [[media:139 I 64 ITP.pdf|I-64 ITP]] || ||[[media:139.8.2.2(e).xls|139.8.2.2(e) Environmental Commitments Form]]
 |-
-|Greater Project Cost Certainty|| ||
+| [[media:139 Sample Quality Oversight Plans.pdf|Sample Quality Oversight Plans]] ||  ||[[media:139.8.2.5.doc|139.8.2.5 Proposal Conflict of Interest Form]]
-|}
-In order to effectively use project goals to guide project delivery selection, the goals must be defined in order of importance to MoDOT.   "Priority order" allows project delivery decisions-makers to use the #1 goal as the “pivot point” to analyze all delivery choices. The remaining goals, established in descending order of importance, further define and shape the project’s procurement/delivery strategies.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
 |-
-|STAY TRUE TO THE PROJECT GOALS
+| [[media:139 Financial Services Coding.pdf|Financial Services Coding for Design-Build]] || ||[[media:139.8.2.6.doc|139.8.2.6 Stipend Release Agreement]]
-|}
-Also, prioritized goals provide a basis for project “trade-off” decisions during the development of design-build procurement documents. Whether the project team is determining short-list criteria, design-build contractor selection criteria, technical provision requirements or risk allocation, the prioritized project goals guide how one approach is selected over other viable options.
-====139.1.1.2 Content of Project Goal-Setting====
-Project goals are standards that meassure the success of a project. Most projects’ goals are complex, requiring objectives to be further used to better define how goals are to be measured. Objectives are the methods by which the project goals are achieved.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
 |-
-|OBJECTIVES:
+| [[media:139 File Storage Structure.pdf|File Storage Structure for Design-Build]] || ||
-METHODS BY WHICH PROJECT GOALS ARE ACHIEVED'''
 |}
-Questions that should be considered when determining the goals for a project include:
+Traditionally, MoDOT has used the design-bid-build approach for project delivery.  This approach involves the development of [http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Category:237_Contract_Plans design plans] by either internal staff or an engineering consultant and separate selection of the contractor by the lowest responsive bid method. The design-build approach enables the designer and contractor to work together to develop the most cost effective yet constructible set of plans given their strengths and efficiencies. Since the contractor is on board at the start of design, construction can begin as soon as the necessary design detail is developed.  This overlapping of design and construction reduces the overall delivery schedule and delivers the completed project faster. The design-build procurement schedule generally lasts six to eight months compared to the two to three years it takes to design and award a traditional design-bid-build contract.
-:A. Is this goal detailed enough to guide preparation of the Procurement Documents?
-:B. Is this a goal which, if met or exceeded, the public would perceive the project as successful?
-:C. Is this goal “end-minded”?
-:D. Is this goal realistic?
-:E. Is this goal measurable?
-:F. Is this goal clear?
-:G. Who is this goal intended to benefit?
-:H. Is this goal based upon an objective assessment of the needs of the community, MoDOT, etc.?
-:I. Are the goals established in order of importance?
-Questions that should be considered when determining the objectives pertaining to a goal include:
-:A. Does this objective contribute toward achieving the goal?
-:B. Will meeting this objective further the interest of meeting the goal?
-:C. Is this an objective for the entire project or for a specific area of the project? If it is for a specific area of the project, what are the objectives for the remaining areas that will achieve the goal?
-:D. Is this objective time-bound?
-:E. Is it an interim or during construction objective?
-:F. Is this objective achievable?
-:G. Is this objective measurable?
-:H. Does the objective provide additional definition in support of the goal?
-Once these questions have been addressed and the goals have been developed, they should be clearly communicated to all project participants including all MoDOT project personnel, the design and construction industry and all project stakeholders.
-====139.1.1.3 Examples====
-The project goals listed below were developed for design-build projects. The goals, and for some projects, objectives, are included as a reference for MoDOT goal setting efforts. Goals/objectives have been highlighted as being well developed (■) or needs improvement (▪).
-<u>Project A</u>
-. Maximize capacity and mobility improvements in the corridor within the program budget of $150 million.
-. Minimize inconvenience to the public during construction.
-[[image:139 I-64.jpg|right|310px|thumb|<center>'''The [http://www.thenewi64.org/ I-64] reconstruction project in St. Louis was selected as the 2010 America's Transportation Awards Grand Prize Winner by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AAA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. '''</center>]]
-. Provide a quality product.
-. Complete construction by end of calendar year 2008.
-. Provide a visually pleasing finished product.
-<u>Project B</u>
-. Minimize inconvenience to adjacent properties and the traveling public.
-. Complete the Project by November 2009 within the budget established by the city. (Should include $ amount).
-. Construct to the highest quality and at the vest value, a safe, functional and aesthetically pleasing parkway that will enhance adjacent properties and be relatively easy to maintain.
-. Encourage participation of local engineers, contractors and material suppliers.
-. Keep the public well informed throughout the duration of the project.
+Not every project is a good candidate for design-build. The traditional design-bid-build approach to a project is often the most viable process for typical construction projects, especially those that are fairly routine or constrained in some manner that reduces the opportunity for innovation. However, the design-build advantages of speed and flexibility in design and construction innovation can prove to be ideal on certain complex projects. Design-Build should be considered for projects that have:
-<u>Project C</u>
+:*	Multiple solutions providing an opportunity for innovation,
+:*	High impact to the public especially with traffic control,
+:*	Other unique or unusual conditions or the need for specialty skills for the project’s design and construction.
-. Budget
+'''Design-Build History'''
-:* Completion of the project within the budget established '''***including the estimated cost set forth in Section 1.7.?***''' (Should include $ amount).
-:* Implement innovative solutions to maximize taxpayer investments by reducing cost or improving the transportation system. (Should include additional objectives to better define “improving transportation system”).
-. Stakeholder Satisfaction
+MoDOT was originally granted authority to use the design-build process on three pilot projects by the Missouri General Assembly in 2004. The first design-build procurement began in 2005 with the $535 million reconstruction of [http://www.thenewi64.org/ Interstate 64 in St. Louis]. In 2007, the second design-build procurement began for the $245 million [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb9VDxUBl1M&list=UU2KXWp-beIlNmdHiQEt9Xsw&index=3&feature=plcp I-29/I-35 kcICON Christopher S. Bond Bridge over the Missouri River]. In 2008, the third design-build procurement was launched for the [http://www.modot.org/safeandsound/ Safe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program], replacing 554 bridges across the state for $487 million. All three projects received national acclaim and were completed on time or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.
-:* Coordinate and mitigate community and stakeholder issues (construction noise, public relations, staging, budget, haul roads, etc.) (Should provide additional detail for the objectives identified).
-. Optimize Design and Construction Quality
+Following that success, the Missouri General Assembly granted further design-build authority to MoDOT, allowing up to two percent of its annual number of projects to be delivered using the design-build delivery model.
-:* Safety to the traveling public and project personnel.
-:* System operation.
-:* Plan implementation
-:* Minimize future maintenance.
-. Schedules
+Information on all past, current and upcoming design-build projects can be found on [http://www.modot.org/business/consultant_resources/DesignBuildInformation.htm MoDOT’s Design-Build webpage].
-:* Begin construction by Spring 2005.
-:* Final Acceptance no later than November 3, 2007.
-'''Examples of MoDOT Design-Build Project Goals'''
+=139.1 Design-Build Values=
-On the New I-64 Project in St, Louis, the project goals were:
+Prescriptive methods and requirements for design-build projects limit the creativity of the private sector and ultimately limit the project scope. Therefore, the design-build philosophy and its processes focus on the desired end result for the project.  This focus ensures that there is the greatest opportunity for flexibility and innovation during both design and construction of the project and maximizes the likelihood to deliver the project within the available project budget. By allowing design-build contractors to propose alternative FHWA approved approaches to means and methods, material requirements, specifications and best practices, the design-build teams can bring innovation to MoDOT.  This opportunity not only benefits the delivery of the related project, but allows MoDOT to capitalize on industry development and advancement by providing a pathway for their innovation into the way MoDOT does business.  Due to the unique nature of MoDOT’s design-build approach, each project team must hold the following core values paramount throughout the design-build process.
-:* Deliver the project within the program budget of $535 million
+==139.1.1 Be Goal Oriented==
-:* Complete the project no later than October 1, 2010
+Prioritized project goals are critical for success and are used to focus the project on the big picture and end result.  The project goals guide all decisions throughout procurement and contract execution.
-:* Maximize the mobility and capacity improvements in the corridor when construction is complete
+[[image:139 Daniel Boone.jpg|right|280px|thumb|<center>'''[http://www.modot.org/stlouis/major_projects/newdanielboonebridge.htm I-64 Daniel Boone Design-Build Information]'''</center>]]
-:* Minimize and mitigate construction impacts to customers through construction staging and communication efforts
-:* Provide a quality product that produces a long lasting transportation facility
-:* Demonstrate a quality construction and communication effort that creates a new model for doing a design-build project.
-On the kcICON Project in Kansas City, the project goals were:
+==139.1.2 Be Flexible==
-:* Deliver the Interstate 29/35 corridor improvements within the total program budget of $245 million.
+Flexibility during design-build procurement allows industry to identify the best possible project solution, providing the best value.  Flexibility maximizes the opportunity for innovation, identifies the best solutions, provides the most improvements for the budget, brings new ideas to MoDOT and develops a partnering attitude.  Project teams should maintain flexibility throughout the contract by evaluating design plans and change proposals based on the contract requirements and project goals. On design-build projects, the goal is to never say, “That’s not how MoDOT does it.”
-:* Construct a landmark Missouri River bridge(s) that can be reasonably maintained to provide more than a century of useful service.
-:* Maximize safety, mobility, aesthetic and capacity improvements in the corridor.
-:* Engage stakeholders and the community to successfully develop and deliver the project.
-:* Meet or beat the project completion date of October 31, 2011.
-===139.1.2 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation===
+==139.1.3 Be Confidential==
-After developing project goals, the next step to successful design-build delivery involve two exercises, risk assessment and risk allocation, that are the keys to maximizing the probability of project implementation achieving the desired outcome and meeting or exceeding the project goals. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are two distinct analyses used for different purposes on design-build projects.
+MoDOT has developed a “best in the industry” reputation for confidentiality.  Confidentiality allows trust to be established with the industry, creates a safe environment for the industry to be innovative, drives competition to provide the best proposal, and validates the design-build selection process.  Each person (MoDOT employee, consultant, or, in some cases, external partners) involved in development of the contract or in project scoring is asked to sign a [[media:139.1.3.doc|Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement]].  Keeping project information confidential throughout the procurement process is held as a critical value for every project team.  Each person (except FHWA representatives) involved in the project procurement process shall sign a Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3).  Discussions with anyone who has not signed the Confidentiality Agreement are not allowed. Each person (except FHWA representatives) that participates in scoring shall sign a [[media:139.8.1.5.doc|Conflict of Interest Form (Form 139.8.1.5)]] for SOQs or a [[media:139.8.2.5.doc|Conflict of Interest Form for Proposals (Form 139.8.2.5)]].
-Risk assessment involves an analysis of the risks involved on a project that likely would cause a design-build contractor to include cost or schedule contingencies in its proposal, and an analysis of which of those risks can be avoided or mitigated by MoDOT, prior to design-build contractor selection.
+==139.1.4 Be an Empowered Team==
+For design-build projects, some specific authority of the Chief Engineer is granted to the Project Director of each project.  This authority establishes the Project Director as the project decision maker, creates trust with industry, expedites the decision making process throughout the contract and helps develop one team with the contractor.  The authority gives the contractor confidence that when a decision is made by the Project Director, the decision is final.
-Risk allocation, on the other hand, is an allocation between MoDOT and the contractor of responsibility for risks that cannot be avoided. Risk should be allocated to the party best able to manage each risk. Both the risk assessment and risk allocation analyses are evaluated in support of the project goals.
+With the delegation of authority, the confidence shown by executive management provides the project team with credibility with the proposers during the procurement phase of the project, and with the selected design-build contractor during implementation. In addition, when the proposers perceive that management has delegated authority to and has confidence in the project team members, there is no temptation to “go over the heads” of the team members to pressure management into making decisions that may conflict with the decisions of the project teams. The delegation of authority to the Project Director requires commission action. When the Project Director uses this authority, they should attach documentation of the commission action granting the authority, usually in the form of a memo from the Chief Engineer.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
 |-
-|WHAT ARE THE RISKS TO THE PROJECT GOALS?
+|[[media:139 Commission Chief Engineer Authority Example.pdf|An example of the authority typically given to the Project Director]] is available.
 |}
-In order to achieve the most effective design-build risk allocation, MoDOT must first conduct a risk assessment to define what risks are involved on a project that can be avoided or mitigated prior to design-build contractor selection. As discussed in more detail below, MoDOT will evaluate the significance of the risk, the effort required of MoDOT to alleviate or mitigate the risk and the probability of impact of the risk.
-After MoDOT has performed a thorough risk assessment and determined how risks can be completely avoided or has determined the degree to which a risk is able to be mitigated, MoDOT will allocate the risks remaining on the project to the party who is in
+For each project, staff from different functional units should be designated to participate on the project team.  Typically, this team consists of traditional core team members, with each member having different areas of expertise, such as design, bridge, construction, right of way, utilities, geotechnical, traffic, customer relations and/or maintenance. Each core discipline applicable to the project should be included in the contract development process.  In some cases, not all disciplines will be represented on the main project team.  In this situation, the Project Director has the responsibility of conferring with subject matter experts, such as design, bridge, environmental, financial, maintenance, traffic, construction or Right of Way staff, to assist in the decision making process, as appropriate.
-the best position to manage and control the risk or the impact of the risk, based upon a consideration of the risk and its impact to the goals of the project. The desired result of a risk assessment/allocation effort is to use MoDOT resources to avoid or mitigate as much risk as possible prior to design-build contractor selection paying close attention to the high impact, high probability risks and to allocate the remaining risks to the party that will be most able to effectively manage the risk.
-====139.1.2.1 Purpose and Objective of Risk Assessment/Risk Allocation====
+=139.2 Project Selection=
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
 |-
-|WHAT RISK MITIGATION MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN?
+|'''*''' [[:Category:149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment|EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment]] provides guidance for design-build project selection.
+|-
+|'''*''' [[media:139 Commission Chief Engineer Authority Example.pdf|Examples of the MHTC back-up documents and transfer of authority]] are available.
 |}
-A thorough risk assessment will allow MoDOT to clearly identify those tasks that should be undertaken by MoDOT that will eliminate or reduce risk to the project goals. It will also allow MoDOT to determine the priority of the risk mitigation efforts required and to allocate the necessary resources efficiently to the areas of greatest risk that result in the most significant risk reduction.
+The first steps of any design-build (DB) project are selecting a project and selecting a Project Director.  EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment provides guidance for the Project Delivery Method Determination process, which includes goal setting strategies and risk analysis guidance.  Upon selecting a project for DB, a Project Director is named by the district to be confirmed by the appropriate executive management.  To obtain approval for both, the District Engineer shall contact the Design-Build Coordinator or State Design Engineer to discuss making arrangements for executive management to consider the project. If design-build is the concurred project delivery method, the MHTC will be consulted to approve the project for design-build and delegate certain approval and expenditure authorities to the Chief Engineer or the Chief Engineer's designee, typically the Project Director.
-After MoDOT has completed its risk assessment, an evaluation of the party who is in the best position to manage and control all remaining risks (or impacts of remaining risks) further determines the most effective allocation of risks between MoDOT and the design-build contractor to best achieve the project goals. The allocations of the remaining risks will be set forth in the contract documents.
+Once a project has received MHTC approval, basic information about the project should be placed on the [http://www.modot.org/business/consultant_resources/DesignBuildInformation.htm Design-Build webpage], by the Project Director contacting the Design-Build Coordinator. The Project Director should also request up-to-date working contract documents, to use as a starting point for their contract.
-====139.1.2.2 Content of  Risk Assessment/Risk Allocation====
+=139.3 The Project Team=
-A Risk Assessment Worksheet will be used to analyze project risks and determine mitigation efforts, if any, that will be performed by MoDOT prior to having selected a design-build contractor. The steps in the risk assessment process are as follows:
-:* Once a risk assessment area is identified, specific risk elements are identified and documented on the risk worksheet under the heading “Risk Element”.
+The first tool is for the project director to create a small, five to ten member core management team to participate from development of the procurement documents, selection of the design-build contractor and oversight of the performance of the work on the project. The project team should represent a variety of engineering and other disciplines that are important to the project. If possible, the team should be located together and should meet at least weekly to manage the delivery of the project.
-:* Then MoDOT will determine, based on a 0 to 6 scale (6 being the greatest mpact – 0 being no impact), the significance of impact that each risk element could have to the goals of the project. The impact factor will be recorded in column A.
+=139.4 Project Goals on Design-Build=
-:* MoDOT will next determine, based on the same 0 to 6 scale (6 being the greatest effort – 0 being no effort), the magnitude of effort that will be required to avoid or mitigate each risk. The level of effort factor is recorded in column B.
+Once a project is selected as design-build, the project team should finalize the goals determined via guidance in [[:Category:149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment|EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment]]. The project team should then request approval of the goals by district and central office executive leadership.  In order to effectively use project goals to guide the procurement process, the goals must be defined in order of importance.  Prioritized goals provide a basis for project “trade-off” decisions during the development of design-build procurement documents and execution of the project contract. Whether the project team is determining short-list criteria, design-build contractor selection criteria, technical provision requirements or risk allocation, the prioritized project goals guide how one approach is selected over other viable options.
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
-:* Thirdly, MoDOT will then determine the probability of the risk impact occurring if no action to avoid or mitigate the risk is taken. The probability factor will be recorded in column C.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
 |-
-|THE RISK FACTOR DETERMINES MITIGATION EFFORT
+|[[media:139 Sample Project Goals.pdf|Examples of previous Design-Build project goals]] are available.
 |}
-:* Based on the risk assessment, a Risk Factor will be calculated (A*B*C). The greater the Risk Factor, the higher the priority for MoDOT to identify mitigation efforts that should be undertaken to reduce the risk and the greater level of resources should be employed to mitigate the risk.
+Prioritized goals are also useful as a public communication tool throughout the procurement process, as much of the design-build process is confidential in nature.  The project goals convey to the public the end result they should see at project completion. Once the goals have been developed and approved, they can be made public, through a project website or other methods. Throughout the project, the goals should be clearly communicated to all project participants including all project personnel, industry public stakeholders.
-:* The last step in the risk assessment process is to identify the risk mitigation tasks that MoDOT will undertake to reduce risks to the project goals.
+=139.5 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation on Design-Build=
-Examples of areas of risks that should be evaluated during a risk assessment include:
+The design-build delivery method is unique in that it allows for risks to be assigned or transferred to the most appropriate party.
-:A. Drainage – Example: (Are there third party approvals necessary for drainage design?)
+After developing project goals, the next step to successful design-build delivery involves two exercises, risk assessment and risk allocation. These exercises are the keys to maximizing the probability of achieving the desired outcome and meeting or exceeding the project goals. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are two distinct analyses used for different purposes on design-build projects.
-:B. Environmental – Example: (Are there environmental permits that MoDOT can obtain in advance of the Request for Proposal?)
+Risk assessment for design-build projects involves an analysis of the risks involved on a project that likely would cause a design-build contractor to include cost or schedule contingencies in its proposal. The risk assessment should analyze which risks can be avoided or mitigated, prior to design-build contractor selection. As discussed in [[:Category:149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment|EPG 149 Project Delivery Method Determination and Risk Assessment]], risks will be evaluated to determine the significance of each risk, the effort required to alleviate or mitigate each risk and the probability of each risk. The project team should use the high level risk assessment developed during the Project Delivery Method Determination Process as a starting point, examining the project in greater detail.
-:C. Method of Handling Traffic – Example: (Can MoDOT agree to detour routes with a public entity?)
+After the risk assessment has been completed, an evaluation of the party who is in the best position to manage and control all remaining risks (or impacts of remaining risks) further determines the most effective allocation of risks between MoDOT and the design-build contractor to best achieve the project goals. Risk allocation is an allocation between MoDOT and the contractor of responsibility for risks that cannot be avoided. Risk should be allocated to the party best able to manage each risk. The allocations of risks will be set forth in the contract documents.
-:D. Noise Walls – Example: (Can MoDOT agree with the public to a height, elevation, etc. of a noise wall or to a process to reach agreement on a noise wall?)
+The desired result of a risk assessment/allocation effort is to use MoDOT resources to avoid or mitigate as much risk as possible prior to Design-Build contractor selection paying close attention to the high impact, high probability risks and to allocate the remaining risks to the party that will be most able to effectively manage the risk.
-:E. Public Information – Example: (Are there research efforts that can assist the design-build contractor in formulating a public information plan or method of handling traffic plan?)
+'''Examples of areas of risks that should be evaluated during a risk allocation include:'''
-:F. Right of way – Examples: (Are there parcels that acquisition can be avoided? Can the amount of right of way acquired be minimized?)
+:'''1.''' Drainage – Who is best able to perform studies of off-site flows, hydrology, etc?
+:'''2.''' Environmental – MoDOT may be in the best position to obtain a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, however, the design-build contractor is the best party to obtain new permits or variances to existing environmental permits based upon its design.
+:'''3.''' Geotechnical – Once MoDOT has determined the extent of an adequate geotechnical investigation, it is normally the Design-Build contractor who should assume the risk of deviations from the borings.
+:'''4.''' Insurance – What type of insurance would be advantageous for each project - traditional insurance, OCIP, CCIP, PCIP?
+:'''5.''' Lighting Agreements – MoDOT may be able to reduce the Design-Build contractor’s contingency by reaching an agreement with the power company utility owner related to temporary lighting.
+:'''6.''' Maintenance During Construction Example - While the risk of maintenance during construction may be most appropriately allocated to the design-build contractor, the risk of extraordinary maintenance of the project during construction may be best allocated to MoDOT.
+:'''7.''' Method of Handling Traffic – Are there agreements that MoDOT can enter into with local jurisdictions for alternate routes?
+:'''8.''' Noise Walls – While MoDOT is probably the best party to assume the risk of dealing with the public regarding many noise wall issues during the environmental process, the Design-Build contractor is the best party to determine where the noise walls are required based upon its final design.
+:'''9.''' Public Information – While MoDOT may be the best position to identify and communicate daily coping messages to the public, the contractor is the best to notify MoDOT of upcoming work and public impacts.
+:'''10.''' Right of Way – While in typical situations, MoDOT is the party best able to acquire permanent right of way, the design-build contractor is in the best position to determine the necessary temporary right of way for the project.
+:'''11.''' Utilities – MoDOT can avoid high utility contingencies by reaching a master utility agreement with utility owners that define a process for relocations caused by the project.
-:G. Roadway design – Example (Are there variances or exceptions that can be acquired or granted prior to issuance of the request for proposal?)
+=139.6 Policy Issues in Design-Build=
-:H. Structures – Example (Are there approvals or variances that can be obtained in advance of the RFP?)
+MoDOT uses a white paper process to develop the proposed approach for significant design-build elements and to communicate that approach to all interested employees. The white papers are ultimately approved by executive management for incorporation into the [[media:139 I 64 RFP.pdf|Design-Build Request for Proposal (RFP)]].  White papers can also be used to document innovative ideas or solutions implemented on a design-build project, which may be useful on traditional design-bid-build projects.
-:I. Third Party Agreements and Permits (other than environmental) – examples (Are there local IGA’s, railroad agreements, process agreements, standards agreements that can be obtained in advance of the RFP?)
+'''The White Paper Process'''
-:J. Utilities – Example (Are there utilities that can be relocated prior to the RFP? Are there SUE locations of utilities that can be provided to the design-build contractor before the RFP?)
+The purpose of the white paper process is to document a recommended approach to particular design-build concepts and to receive concurrence by management and approval by the Chief Engineer.  New or revised design-build concepts should follow the approval process below.
-The risk allocation is an assessment of which party is in the best position to manage and control the remaining risks or impacts to the remaining risks. The risk allocation must be conducted based upon the remaining risks. Risk allocations are allocations between MoDOT and the design-build contractor of responsibility for risks that cannot be avoided.
+:'''Step 1.''' Design-Build concepts are developed and described in white paper format.
-Examples of areas of risks that should be evaluated during a risk allocation include:
+:'''Step 2.''' The draft white paper is reviewed, discussed and finalized by the Design-Build Coordinator.
-:A. Drainage – Example: (Who is best able to perform studies of off-site flows, hydrology, etc?)
+:'''Step 3.''' The draft white paper will be submitted to and reviewed by various Division Directors/Engineers when the white paper affects their jurisdiction, and by the Chief Engineer. Draft white papers may be provided to other select stakeholders if needed. Comments received will be reviewed by the Design-Build Coordinator. If the Design-Build Coordinator deems the comments to be consistent with nationally recognized design-build best practices, the comments will be incorporated into the draft white paper. If comments received during the stakeholder reviews differ from the original approach finalized by the design-build project team, both design-build concepts will be presented to the Chief Engineer for direction.
-:B. Environmental – Example: (MoDOT may be in the best position to obtain a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, however, the design-build contractor is the best party to obtain new permits or variances to existing environmental permits based upon its design.)
+:'''Step 4.''' The white paper is presented to the Chief Engineer for approval.
-:C. Geotechnical – Example: (Once MoDOT has determined the extent of an adequate geotechnical investigation, it is normally the design-build contractor who should assume the risk of deviations from the borings.)
+Approved white papers should be considered living documents to be updated on an as needed basis to reflect current policies on various design-build topics. The lessons learned identified during design-build projects need to be documented. Revised white papers shall be submitted to the Design-Build Coordinator for review and approval in order to ensure consideration during development of future design-build projects.
-:D. Insurance – Example: (What type of insurance would be advantageous for each project - traditional insurance, OCIP, CCIP, PCIP?)
+=139.7 FHWA involvement on Design-Build Projects=
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
+|[[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|MoDOT/FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement]]
+|}
-:E. Lighting Agreements – Example: (MoDOT may be able to reduce the design-build contractor’s contingency by reaching an agreement with the power company utility owner related to temporary lighting.)
+Since the design-build process can be complex and involve time critical reviews and approvals, the [[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|MoDOT/FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement]] outlines the Missouri Division of FHWA’s involvement on design-build projects. The purpose of the Design-Build Program Agreement is to ensure that MoDOT and FHWA have an understanding of the level of involvement, approval actions, roles, responsibilities and processes that FHWA will provide on Design-Build projects. The agreement addresses the design-build procurement process, the [[127.14 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Classification and Documents|NEPA process]] as it relates to design-build, the [[234.1 Access to Interstate Highways|Access Justification Report (AJR)]] process and other approval requirements during contract execution.
-:F. Maintenance During Construction Example -- (While the risk of maintenance during construction is most appropriate allocated to the design-build contractor, the risk of extraordinary maintenance of the project during construction would best be assumed by MoDOT.)
+'''Document Review Procedures'''
-:G. Method of Handling Traffic – Example (Are there agreements that MoDOT can enter into with local jurisdictions for alternate routes?)
+FHWA will review procurement documents developed for each project, for conformance with federal requirements.  Feedback resulting from these reviews will be provided to MoDOT within timeframes included in the [[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|MoDOT/FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement]].  The project team shall also coordinate with Central Office staff, including the Design-Build Coordinator, regarding procurement document reviews.  Internal reviews should occur prior to FHWA reviews, but can be performed concurrently if needed.  It is important to allow for adequate review time when developing the project procurement schedule.  The project team may use the [[media:139.8.1.xls|Review Comment Response Sheet (RCRS) Form (Form 139.8.1)]] to collect and respond to comments.
-:H. Noise Walls – Example (While MoDOT is probably the best party to assume the risk of dealing with the public regarding many noise wall issues during the environmental process, the design-build contractor is the best party to determine where the noise walls are required based upon its final design.)
+=139.8 Design-Build Procurement Process=
-:I. Public Information – Example (The design-build contractor is in the best position to identify and communicate daily coping messages to the public.)
+The first phase in a two-phase, design-build procurement process begins with short-listing the most highly qualified submitters based on qualifications submitted in response to a [[media:139 I 64 RFQ.pdf|Request for Qualifications (RFQ)]]. The second phase consists of the submission technical proposals, and sometimes contract price, in response to a [[media:139 I 64 RFP.pdf|Request for Proposals (RFP)]].
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
+|The [[media:139 Design Build Process Checklist.pdf|Design-Build Process Checklist]] can be used as a guide through all the steps in the design-build process.  A list of [[media:139 Acronyms.pdf|design-build acronyms]] can be helpful in learning the “language” of design-build.
+|}
+Even before the procurement process begins, the MoDOT project teams shall not share information that will give any potential design-build team an advantage. Very little other than the project goals, schedule and budget can be shared publicly before the RFQ is released.  Once the project goals are finalized and approved by the executive committee and the project budget set in STIP, this information and the procurement schedule can and should be shared publicly.  Potential solutions will not be discussed publicly during the RFQ phase.
-:J. Right of Way – Example (While in most situations, MoDOT is the party best able to acquire permanent right of way, the design-build contractor is in the best position to determine the necessary temporary right of way for the project.)
+EPG 139 Design-Build focuses on the contents and concepts involved in a two-phase design-build procurement process, as that is the most likely approach to design-build procurement. However, the design-build rules and FHWA’s design-build regulations allow for a one-step procurement process (Modified Design-Build) that is typically used for small, non-complex projects that includes a low bid selection process.
-:K. Utilities – Example (MoDOT can avoid high utility contingencies by reaching a master utility agreement with utility owners that define a process for relocations caused by the project.)
+==139.8.1 Request for Qualifications (Phase 1)==
+During the RFQ (Phase 1) process, the qualifications are established that will be evaluated to determine which of the submitters are the most highly qualified to perform the design-build project.  These qualifications should reflect the goals of the project.
+The short-listing process for design-build procurement should not be confused with the pre-qualification process for contractors used for design-bid-build projects. Short-listing submitters for a design-build project identifies the most highly qualified potential design-build team where prequalifying contractors for design-bid-build projects identifies all contractors that are qualified to submits bids.
-:L. Value Engineering – (MoDOT can encourage value engineering by sharing the savings with the design-build contractor.)
+It is required by [http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299/2270000107.HTM state statute] to short-list no more than five and no fewer than two submitters.
-Once these risks have been evaluated and allocated they should be clearly communicated in the Draft Request for Proposals.
+Missouri Design-Build Statute
-====139.1.2.3 Examples====
+===139.8.1.1 Public Notice of Upcoming Design-Build Project===
-[[media:139.1.2.3 Risk Assessment Worksheet Example.pdf|An example Risk Assessment Worksheet]] and portions of a [[media:139.1.2.3 Risk Allocation example.doc|Risk Allocation/Decision Matrix]] are included for reference.
+MoDOT is required by statute to give public notice, or advertise a [[media:139 I 64 RFQ.pdf|Request for Qualifications]] in at least two public newspapers that are distributed wholly or in part in Missouri and at least one construction industry trade publication that is distributed nationally.  Typically, advertisements are placed in large city newspapers (St. Louis and Kansas City), the local paper in the area of the project, and an engineering trade magazine, such as ''[http://www.roadsbridges.com/ Roads and Bridges]''. Consideration should also be given to advertising in minority newspaper publications, if one exists in the project area.  The advertisement should also be emailed to the MoDOT consultant and contractor databases, as well as the DBE database.
-===139.1.3 Policy Issues===
+Typically, the advertisement is placed approximately 30 days prior to the industry meeting.  Advertisements are run for one day (or one week/month in the case of a weekly/monthly publication).  Trade publications typically offer an online advertisement that is less expensive.
-Creating a design-build program requires developing technical specifications, contract provisions, selection procedures, quality systems and a contract administration organization that may differ significantly from those utilized by MoDOT on design-bid-build projects. As a result, it is important to utilize a white paper process that thoroughly develops a proposed approach for significant design-build elements and communicates the approach to all interested MoDOT employees. The white papers are ultimately approved by the MoDOT policy makers for incorporation into the design-build Request for Proposal (RFP).
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
+|[[media:139 Project Advertisement Example.pdf|A sample project advertisement]] is available.
+|}
-====139.1.3.1 Purpose and Objective of the White Paper Process====
+The project advertisement should also be placed on the project website, which should be accessible through [http://www.modot.org/business/consultant_resources/DesignBuildInformation.htm MoDOT’s Design-Build website] as well as through the district and/or major project sites.  The project website will be used throughout the RFQ (phase 1) process to communicate with potential submitters.
-The purpose of the white paper process is to document a recommended approach to particular design-build concepts and to receive concurrence by MoDOT management and, ultimately, approval by the Chief Engineer.
-====139.1.3.2 Content of White Paper Process====
+===139.8.1.2 RFQ Process Purpose and Objectives ===
-The Design-Build Leadership Team has developed a process to develop state-of-the-art design-build provisions for the MoDOT design-build program and is described below.
+The purpose of the RFQ process is to develop a short list of two to five submitters identified as the most highly qualified, which will be allowed to participate in the RFP process.  The RFQ is the opportunity to communicate to interested parties the specific qualifications/experience desired of submitters and to provide guidance on how the short list will be developed.  The RFQ identifies and prioritizes the desired team traits that should be addressed by each submitter’s Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Furthermore, the RFQ details the specific qualifications and experience required of the proposed key personnel for each submitter, which is to be included in the SOQ. The RFQ may require the submitters to describe their past performance in areas such as safety, schedule, budget and community satisfaction.
-'''Step 1.''' Design-build concepts are developed and described in white paper format.
+The RFQ submittal requirements should focus on identifying the submitters that provide the best probability of achieving or exceeding the project’s goals. In addition to the common items found in many RFQs such as a description of the project, the goals for the project, and the general procurement schedule, unique project interests and requirements tailored to desired project outcomes must be included. Therefore, the following items should be considered when developing RFQ requirements:
-'''Step 2.''' The draft white paper is reviewed, discussed and finalized by the Design-Build Leadership Team.
+:*	The project goals.
+:*	Is local design and construction experience important?
+:*	Is design-build experience important?
+:*	Are the qualifications and availability of key personnel important?
+:*	Is the long term financial stability of the team important? Generally, this needs to be considered for very large projects.
+:*	What management systems/philosophies are important, if any?
+:*	What past performance measures need to be included, if any?
+:*	What rating criteria will be used to determine the most highly qualified submitters?
-'''Step 3.''' The draft white paper will be submitted to and reviewed by various MoDOT Division Directors/Engineers when the white paper affects their jurisdiction, and by the Chief Engineer. Draft white papers may be provided to other select stakeholders if MoDOT determines that it would be advantageous. Comments received will be reviewed by the Design-Build Leadership Team. If the Design-Build Leadership Team deems the comments to be consistent with nationally recognized design-build best practices, the comments will be incorporated into the draft white paper. If comments received during the stakeholder reviews differ from the original approach finalized by the Design-Build Leadership Team, both design-build concepts will be presented to the Chief Engineer for direction.
+It is important to develop short-listing criteria that establish a clear separation between the most highly qualified teams and all other submitters.  Within the design-build industry it is generally understood that a short-listing process helps to identify, very early in the procurement process, a team (or teams) that is unlikely to be selected. This benefits those teams by preventing them from wasting their time and money competing for a project they are unlikely to be awarded. On the other hand, the short-listed teams gain a higher probability of being successful, so they are more likely to put the necessary resources into developing proposals.  This typically results in higher quality teams, higher quality proposals (risk vs. reward) and a more efficient proposal review process.
-'''Step 4.''' The white paper is presented to the Chief Engineer for approval.
+It is important to minimize the duplication of information requested in both the RFQ and RFP. By doing so, the cost for each competing team is reduced and interest in the MoDOT design-build program is maintained.
-Approved white papers should be considered as living documents to be updated on an as needed basis to provide MoDOT’s current policies on various design-build topics. Lessons learned captured from completed design-build projects will be the bases for
+===139.8.1.3 Contents of the RFQ===
-proposed changes to previously approved design-build white papers. Revised white papers will be brought to the current MoDOT Design-Build Leadership Team for review and approval to provide direction to be used in the formulation of future design-build
+Typically, the RFQ should include the following information:
-RFPs.
-====139.1.3.3 Example====
+:'''1. Introductory Information.''' The RFQ includes a brief description of the project, the project goals, the estimated contract price (if known), and the completion deadline.
-Attached is [[media:139.1.3 White Paper Example.doc|an example White Paper]] that has been prepared by the Design-Build Leadership Team and approved by the Chief Engineer.
-===139.1.4 Request for Qualifications===
+:'''2. RFQ Process information.''' The RFQ includes a description of the procurement process, submitter requirements and the procurement schedule.
-A two-phase, design-build procurement process begins with short-listing the most highly qualified Submitters based on qualifications submitted in response to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). The second phase consists of the submission of price and technical proposals in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP). During the RFQ process, MoDOT will identify for the submitters the qualifications it will evaluate to determine which of the Submitters are the most qualified to perform the design-build project. The items in the RFQ that are used to determine the short-list should reflect the goals of the
-project.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
-|-
-|SHORT-LISTING IDENTIFIES THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED SUBMITTERS
-|}
-The short-listing process for a design-build procurement should not be confused with the pre-qualification process used for design-bid-build projects. Short-listing submitters for a design-build project identifies the most highly qualified submitters where prequalifying contractors for design-bid-build projects identifies all contractors that are qualified to submits bids.
-MoDOT is required by state statute and rules to short-list no more than five and no fewer than two submitters.
-====139.1.4.1 Purpose and Objective of the RFQ Process====
-There are several objectives of the RFQ process. The primary objective is to determine how submitters will be short-listed as the most highly qualified to perform the design-build project. The RFQ provides MoDOT with the opportunity to communicate to the submitters which team member qualifications/experience are most important to identify in their Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). It also allows MoDOT to identify what qualifications/experience of the design-build team’s key personnel are required to be included in the SOQ. The RFQ may also require the submitters to describe their past performance in areas such as safety, schedule, budget and community satisfaction. It may be necessary to request a team’s general approach and philosophy to the
-management of the project, quality management or community relations approach (items such as these are best requested in an RFP, however, in some cases these types of items may need to be included in a RFQ to be able to determine the most highly qualified teams because of the project goals or the nature of the project, e.g. size, complexity etc.).
-The RFQ submittal requirements should be focused on identifying the teams that have the highest probability of achieving or exceeding the project’s goals. Even though there are a number of common items found in many RFQs such as a description of the project, the goals for the project, and the general procurement schedule, each short-listing process should be unique and tailored to MoDOT’s desired outcome. Items MoDOT should consider when developing RFQ requirements are:
+:'''3. SOQ Contents and Evaluation Criteria.''' The RFQ details what information must be submitted by each submitter, including administrative elements, submitter experience information and key personnel and organization information. The heart of the RFQ is a description of the factors that will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified submitters. Examples include the experience of the major participants in similar projects, the safety records of the major participants, and the experience and qualifications of proposed key personnel (which positions and minimum qualifications are defined in the RFQ). Examples of key personnel are Project Manager, Design Manager, Construction Manager and Quality Manager.
-:* The project goals.
+:'''4. Submittal Requirements.''' The RFQ sets forth the format for the statements of qualifications and the requirements for submittals, i.e. due date and time, number of copies, etc. and the protest procedures.
-:* Is local design and construction experience important?
+:'''5. Evaluation Process.''' The RFQ describes the method the statements of qualifications will be evaluated and scored.
-:* Is design-build experience important?
+:'''6. General Information.'''
+::'''a.''' The RFQ defines design-build team major participants and states that the major participants and key personnel can only be changed by the submitters with prior approval.
-:* Are the qualifications and availability of key personnel important?
+::'''b.''' The RFQ sets forth the anticipated stipend the short-listed teams will receive if they submit a responsive proposal in response to the RFP.  No stipend is paid for submitting an SOQ.
-:* Is the long term financial stability of the team important? – consider for very large projects
+::'''c.''' The RFQ includes instructions for future communications between MoDOT and the potential DB teams. For participant confidence in the process, all communication by any potential participants after the RFQ is issued should be through the Project Director and only as allowed by the RFQ.
-:* Minimize duplicating information requested in the RFQ and RFP. This reduces the cost of competing for all teams involved with the design-build procurement process and promotes long tern interest in the MoDOT design-build program.
+::'''d.''' The RFQ shall address the process and deadline for any and all questions or requests for clarifications, as well as the process for issuance of addenda.
-:* What management systems/philosophies are important, if any?
+::'''e.''' The RFQ includes requirements related to firms that are ineligible to participate on a submitter’s team, and usually identifies firms that are working with MoDOT to prepare the procurement documents (RFP).  Specifically:
-:* What past performance measures need to be included, if any?
+:::i.	The design-build rules provide that consultants and sub-consultants who assist the commission in the preparation of an RFP document will not be allowed to participate as an offeror (submitter) or join a team submitting a proposal in response to the RFP. However, the commission may determine that there is not conflict of interest for a consultant or subconsultant where:
-:* What rating criteria will be used to determine the most highly qualified submitters? (It is important to develop short-listing criteria that allows MoDOT to determine if there is a clear separation between the most highly qualified teams and all other submitters.)
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
 |-
-|THE RFQ PROCESS SHOULD ENCOURAGE THE FORMATION OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED PROPOSERS
+|[http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/7csr/7c10-24.pdf Design-Build Rules: 7 CSR 10-24]
 |}
-It is generally accepted by the design-build industry that a short-listing process is a very beneficial step included in a design-build procurement process. This view is held by many because the process may identify, very early in the procurement process, a team (or teams) that has a very unlikely chance of being selected. This benefits the non short-listed teams because they do not waste their time and money competing for a project for which they have a very low probability of being successful. On the other hand, the short-listed teams have a higher probability of being successful, so they put greater resources into developing Proposals resulting in higher quality Proposals (risk vs. reward), a more efficient Proposal review process, and
+::::1.	The role of the consultant or sub-consultant was limited to provision of preliminary design, reports, or similar “low-level” documents that will be incorporated into the RFP, and did not include assistance in development of instructions to offerors or evaluation criteria, or
-higher quality teams submitting proposals.
+::::2.	Where all documents and reports delivered to the commission by the consultant or sub-consultant are made available to all offerors.
-====139.1.4.2 Contents of the RFQ====
+:::ii.	The rules further provide that all solicitations for design-build contracts, including related contracts for inspection, administration or auditing services, must direct the offeror to this section of the rules. In addition to MoDOT’s rules, on projects involving federal funds, the federal regulations have similar provisions.
-The RFQ should include a brief description of the project, the project goals, the estimated contract price (if known), and the project schedule. The RFQ also includes instructions for future team communications with MoDOT. At the time of issuance of the RFQ, the only future communications should be through MoDOT’s project manager and only as allowed by the RFQ. For example, a process and deadline for any questions or requests for clarifications related to the RFQ process will be defined in the RFQ.
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
-The RFQ includes requirements related to firms that are ineligible to participate on a Submitter’s team, and usually identifies firms that are working with MoDOT to prepare the procurement documents (RFP). MoDOT’s design-build rules, [http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/7csr/7c10-24.pdf 7 CSR 10-24.010 through 7 CSR 10-24.413], provide that consultants and sub-consultants who assist the commission in the preparation of an RFP document will not be allowed to participate as an offeror (submitter) or join a team submitting a proposal in response to the RFP. However, the commission may determine that there is not conflict of interest for a consultant or sub-consultant where:
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
 |-
-|THE RFQ INCLUDES TEAMING RULES FOR THE CONTRACTOR.
+|[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title23-vol1/xml/CFR-2013-title23-vol1-part636.xml Federal Design-Build rules: 23 CFR Part 636 Subpart A].
 |}
-:1. The role of the consultant or sub-consultant was limited to provision of preliminary design, reports, or similar “low-level” documents that will be incorporated into the RFP, and did not include assistance in development of instructions to offerors or evaluation criteria, or
-:2. Where all documents and reports delivered to the commission by the consultant or sub-consultant are made available to all offerors.
+::'''f.''' The RFQ should state that documents submitted in response to the RFQ will be subject to the Missouri Public Records Act, and detail procedure for marking items confidential or proprietary.
-The rules further provide that all solicitations for design-build contracts, including related contracts for inspection, administration or auditing services, must direct the offeror to this section of the rules (7 CSR 10-24.080). In addition to MoDOT’s rules, on projects involving federal funds, the federal regulations have similar provisions in [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/cfr23toc.htm 23 CFR Subchapter A].
+::'''g.''' The RFQ sets forth the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy and the DBE goal(s) for the project and identifies where the submitters may obtain copies of a directory of DBEs. In addition to setting an overall DBE goal, separate DBE goals may be set for design services and for construction.
-The RFQ requires the submitters to identify their major participants and key personnel, as defined by MoDOT. It further defines a process where the major participants and key personnel can only be changed by the submitters with prior approval of MoDOT. The RFQ sets forth the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) goal(s) for the project and identifies where the Submitters may obtain copies of a directory of DBEs. In addition to setting an overall DBE goal, MoDOT may set separate DBE goals for design and for construction. The design DBE goals would be based on the percentage of DBE design consultants that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the preliminary cost estimate for design on the project. The construction DBE goals would be based on the percentage of DBE subcontractors that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the construction work on the project. The methodology of setting each goal should be the same that is used for design-bid-build projects.
+:::i.	The design DBE goals are based on the percentage of DBE design consultants that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the design on the project.
-The heart of the RFQ is a description of the factors that will be evaluated by MoDOT to determine the most highly qualified Submitters. Examples of the types of factors include the experience of the major participants in similar projects, the safety records of the major participants, and the experience and qualifications of proposed key personnel (which positions and minimum qualifications are defined by MoDOT). The RFQ describes the method the statements of qualifications will be evaluated and scored.
+:::ii.	The construction DBE goals would be based on the percentage of DBE subcontractors that are available and qualified to perform a portion of the construction work on the project. The methodology of setting each goal should be the same that is used for design-bid-build projects, and should be requested through the [http://wwwi/intranet/ecr/index.htm Division of External Civil Rights].
-The RFQ includes requirements regarding the Submitter’s legal structure, bonding capacity and additional financial requirements, if any. On most projects, assurance of required bonding capacity of the offerors is adequate to show financial capability of the submitters.
+::'''h.''' The RFQ may also include requirements regarding the submitter’s legal structure, bonding capacity and additional financial requirements, if any. On most projects, assurance of required bonding capacity of the submitters is adequate to show financial capability. Design-Build contracts may be for larger amounts of money and in such cases, companies must have the ability to bond that amount. In the case of The New I-64, the design-build contractor teams were required to have bonding capacity of more than $400 million.  The I-64 teams included national design-build companies and prime contractor and design firms from St. Louis. In this instance all of these companies made up the prime contracting team.
-Finally, the RFQ sets forth the format for the statements of qualifications the requirements for submittals, i.e. due date and time, number of copies, etc., and the protest procedures. As shown in EPG 139.1.4.3 below, MoDOT will provide forms for most of the information requested of the submitters.
+::Forms should be provided for most of the information requested of the submitters, as follows:
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
+|[[media:139 I 64 RFQ.pdf|A sample RFQ]]
+|}
+:::i.	Major Participant Information Form.
+:::ii.	Reference Project Summary Form.
+:::iii. Resume Summary Form.
+:::iv.	Receipt of Addenda Form.
+:::v.	Statement of Existence of Organization Conflicts Form.
-====139.1.4.3 Example====
-[[media:139.1.4.3 KCIcon RFQ Example.pdf|An example RFQ]] is included for reference.
-===139.1.5 Request for Proposal===
+===139.8.1.4 Industry Meeting===
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
 |-
-|AN RFP INCLUDES LEGAL, TECHNICAL AND CONTRACTOR SELECTION REQUIREMENTS
+|A [[media:139 Industry Meeting Agenda Example.pdf|sample agenda for this meeting is available]]
+|-
+|A [[media:139 Industry Meeting Name Tag Key.pdf|key defining name tag colors]]
+|-
+|A [[media:139 Industry Meeting Sign in Sheet.docx|blank sign-in sheet for this meeting]]
 |}
-Once the risk assessment and risk allocation processes have been completed or are far enough along to provide adequate guidance, the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents can be developed. An RFP defines the legal, technical and design-build contractor selection requirements for the project. EPG 139.1.5 focuses on the contents and concepts involved in a two-step
+For most design-build projects an industry meeting is conducted, typically scheduled immediately before or after the RFQ release.  The industry meeting is used to introduce the project to the design and construction industries and announce the procurement schedule for the project. Typically, the industry meeting includes an introduction of the MoDOT project team, a presentation related to the project and the RFQ and an opportunity for questions and answers.  The remaining time is dedicated to an industry mixer, where prime contractors, subcontractors and professional services companies, identified by name tags, can network and have the opportunity to establish connections for the benefit of the project.  Previous mixers have led to the development of submitting teams and can be very beneficial to meeting all of the project goals. To allow for further communication between consultants, sub-contractors and DBEs, the sign-in sheet is typically made public immediately following the industry meeting, by posting to the project website.
-design-build procurement process, as that will most likely be MoDOT’s approach to design-build procurement. However,
-MoDOT’s design-build rules and FHWA’s design-build regulations allow for a one-step procurement process (modified design-build)
+===139.8.1.5 Scoring of Statements of Qualification ===
-that is typically used for small, non-complex projects that includes a low bid selection process.
+====139.8.1.5.1 SOQ Evaluation Procedures====
+A confidential SOQ Evaluation Procedures document is created for each design-build project.  The document includes, at a minimum, specifics related to maintaining confidentiality of the SOQs, scoring team organization and roles, scoring procedures and evaluation criteria, including compliance reviews.
+====139.8.1.5.2 Scoring Teams====
+Scoring teams are composed of appropriate staff representative of the applicable areas of expertise associated with the proposals.  The Project Director works with the MoDOT project team to determine the scoring team members, which may include personnel outside of the immediate project team, and establish a scoring chairperson.  Each member of the scoring team shall sign the [[media:139.1.3.doc|Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3)]] and [[media:139.8.1.5.doc|Conflict of Interest Form for SOQs (Form 139.8.1.5)]]. After scoring is complete, the scoring chairperson(s) will document the scoring process and outcome in a memo (the [Final Recommendation Report]), which summarizes each team’s strengths and weakness and states the recommended short-list, to the Project Director.
-====139.1.5.1 Purpose and Objective of the RFP Process====
+====139.8.1.5.3 Draft Short List Development====
-There are three main objectives of the Request for Proposals process. First, the RFP should provide clear, concise and flexible technical requirements that provides for a quality project. Second, an RFP should provide contract terms that fairly allocates risk between MoDOT and the contractor. Last, an RFP should include contractor selection criteria that are designed to achieve or exceed the goals of the project and to the party best able to manage high quality, clear and flexible requirements that achieve quality, cost-effective proposals from potential design-build contractors. The process provides MoDOT with the opportunity to discover whether it has misallocated or overlooked risks from the contractor’s perspective and to make better decisions. The result is a final RFP that clearly describes and defines MoDOT’s “must have” requirements for the project while allowing the maximum amount of flexibility for the proposers.
+The short-list is restricted to no more than 5 teams and a minimum of 2; therefore, short-list selection should be intentionally crafted to differentiate between submitting teams. Appropriate rating criteria will be used to determine a maximum of five most highly qualified teams and/or demonstrate a significant separation between the most highly qualified and those meeting qualifications.  An example of SOQ rating criteria used on past projects is provided below.  If there is no clear numerical separation between teams, the Project Director and Executive Selection Committee (refer to [[#139.8.1.6 Short List Approval|EPG 139.8.1.6 Short List Approval]]) may, at their discretion, choose to further examine the submitting teams by requesting additional information from the teams or conducting interviews.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
+<center>
+{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:left"
+|+
+! width=250 style="background:#BEBEBE" |Score!! width=650 style="background:#BEBEBE" |Description
+|-
+| align="center"|Green,<br/> Exceptional +/-, or 85-100%	||The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated requirements/objectives and provides a consistently outstanding level of quality. There is very little or no risk that the submitter would fail to meet the project goals. There are essentially no weaknesses.
+|-
+|align="center"|Yellow,<br/>Good +/-, or 60-84%	||The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated requirements/objectives and offers a generally better than acceptable quality. There is little risk that the submitter would fail to meet the project goals. Weaknesses, if any, are minor.
+|-
+|align="center"|Orange,<br/>Acceptable +/-, or 20-59%	||The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated requirements/objectives and has an acceptable level of quality. The submitter demonstrates a reasonable probability of meeting the project goals. Weaknesses are minor.
 |-
-|THE RFP DOCUMENTS LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD AND PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY
+|align="center"|Red,<br/>Unacceptable, or 0-19%	||The submitter has demonstrated an approach that is considered to fail to meet the stated requirements/objectives and/or provides unacceptable quality and/or demonstrates no reasonable likelihood of meeting the project goals and/or contains weaknesses that are major.
 |}
-MoDOT has proven to be a leader in providing flexibility on design-build RFPs. The clear direction of MoDOT’s management has been to define for the proposers ONLY minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for each technical discipline. MoDOT then allows proposers to submit standards, specifications, designs and approaches that have been used on other projects and to approve their use unless there is a reason that the approach cannot apply to the MoDOT project’s situation. This approach
+</center>
-has been so successful for MoDOT in St. Louis and in Kansas City that other states have followed MoDOT’s lead in providing maximum flexibility.
+For the purposes of evaluating SOQs, a strength represents a part of the SOQ that ultimately represents a benefit to the project and is expected to increase the Submitter’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
-'''RFP Documents.''' The purpose of the ITP is to define for the proposers the form and contents of their proposals and to describe the criteria that MoDOT will use to score the proposals. The purpose of the form and content requirements is twofold. Specifying the format ensures that the proposals will be uniform and therefore easier to compare against each other. Moreover, consistency in formatting places the proposers in a more equal setting, allowing the proposers to focus on the substantive contents of their proposals.
+:*	Significant strength has a considerable positive influence on the submitter’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
+:*	Minor strength has a slight positive influence on the submitter’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
-Specification of the evaluation criteria allows MoDOT to prioritize for the proposers the requirements MoDOT believes best meet the project goals. The inclusion of the evaluation criteria is also required by MoDOT statute (Section 227.107, RSMo, Supp. 2002) and rules (7 CSR 10-24.210).
+For the purposes of evaluating SOQs, a weakness represents a part of the SOQ that detracts from the submitter’s ability to meet the project goals or may result in inefficient or ineffective performance.
-The purpose of Book 1 of the RFP (also referred to as the “contract”) is to define the legal parameters of the design-build contract and to provide for flexibility for the designbuild contractor. Book 1 provides, among other things, the requirements for payment, change orders, project acceptance and dispute resolution. Book 1 designates the areas where, after award of the contract, the design-build contractor has the flexibility to propose cost-savings changes to the contract requirements that are equal to or better than the technical requirements. Book 1 also distinguishes the specific areas where costsavings
+:*	Significant weakness has a considerable negative influence on the submitter’s ability to meet the project goals.
-proposals are treated as value engineering proposals.
+:*	Minor weakness has a slight negative influence on the submitter’s ability to meet the project goals.
-A critical exhibit to Book 1 is the definitions exhibit, applicable to all of the RFP documents. Many definitions in the RFP are unique to the design-build process and have been changed from the traditional design-bid-build definitions to conform to the risk allocation decisions that have been made for the project. (see [[#139.1.2 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation
+===139.8.1.6 Short List Approval===
-|EPG 139.1.2 Risk Assessment and Risk Allocation]]). In order to understand the technical requirements of the RFP, it is necessary to understand the applicable definitions.
+According to [http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/7csr/7c10-24.pdf 7 CSR 10-24.030], all responses to the Request for Qualifications will be evaluated by a prequalification review/short listing team, known as the Executive Selection Committee. The Executive Selection Committee will be comprised of the following MoDOT staff or their designated representative: Chief Engineer, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer (Chief Financial Officer), Controller (Financial Services Director), Director of Program Delivery (Assistant Chief Engineer), one or more District Engineer(s), Project Director for Project, State Construction and Materials Engineer, State Bridge Engineer and the State Design Engineer. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), acting as an external partner will be an observer to the prequalification/short listing process.
-Book 2 provides the project specific technical requirements of the RFP. The purpose of the technical requirements is to define the “box” that the design-build contractor needs to stay within in designing and building the project. The goal is to provide as much flexibility to the design-build contractor as possible to take full advantage of design-build innovation to meet or exceed project goals. However, if there are specific items that MoDOT has determined it requires as part of the project, those should be specifically identified.
+After scoring in accordance with the SOQ Evaluation Procedures document, the Project Director will meet with the Executive Selection Committee to present details of all SOQs received, as well as the ratings each team received. The Executive Selection Committee report should include, at a minimum:
-Book 3 includes applicable standards, data and reports. The purpose of Book 3 is to provide the design-build contractor with the data, reports and studies for which MoDOT guarantees the accuracy and assumes the risk for any necessary changes. For example, if changes become necessary due to errors in Book 3 reports, MoDOT assumes the risk of those changes. MoDOT also provides that the proposers can use alternative standards, specifications and requirements, subject to approval by MoDOT. The proposers have the option of using MoDOTs standards, specifications and requirements as a baseline and proposing alternative standards for specific portions of the project. The standards ultimately agreed to by MoDOT and the proposers are referred to as “Additional Applicable Standards.” If standards or specifications in Book 3 are amended after the proposers have submitted their proposals and MoDOT desires the design-build contractor to comply with the amendments, MoDOT will assume the risk of those changes.
+:*	[[media:139.1.3.doc|Confidentiality forms (Form 139.1.3)]]
+:*	[[media:139.8.1.5.doc|Conflict of Interest forms (Form 139.8.1.5)]]
+:*	Copy of presentation
+:*	Final Recommendation Report
+:*	Scoring sheets or a summary of scoring sheets
+:*	Submitter organization charts
+:*	Project RFQ
+:*	Project SOQ Scoring Procedures
+:*	Blank Short-list Recommendation Approval for Chief Engineer’s signature
+:*	Copy of the [http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299/2270000107.HTM Missouri Design-Build Statute] and [http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/7csr/7c10-24.pdf MoDOT Design-Build Rules]
-Book 4 documents include the project right-of-way plans and any requirements from which the design-build contractor cannot deviate, such as architectural requirements that are applicable to the project’s corridor. The purpose of Book 4 documents is to provide for the design-build contractor the requirements that cannot be modified except through a value engineering process. In other words, the risk of changes to the Book 4 documents is the design-build contractor’s risk.
+A representative from the Chief Counsel’s Office should attend this meeting to advise staff on any legal matters.  Following the presentation, the Executive Selection Committee will move to approve the short list.
-The fifth group of documents in the RFP process is “reference documents”. The sole purpose of the reference documents is to provide the proposers with as much information as possible, even though MoDOT does not wish to guarantee the accuracy of the
+Once the short list is approved, all submitting teams should be notified whether or not they were short-listed.  Once the teams have been notified, the short list is announced publicly, through a press release and/or posting on the project website.  After the short list is announced, the project team may elect to offer debrief meetings with all submitting teams, including those that were not short-listed to provide feedback on their SOQs.
-documents.
-'''RFP Process.''' After MoDOT issues a draft RFP, it conducts an “industry review”. The purpose of the RFP process of industry review is to give MoDOT the opportunity to listen and evaluate the concerns of the design-build construction industry in a confidential setting. Through the process, MoDOT can correct mistakes and unclear provisions in its draft RFP based on the feedback of the proposers. MoDOT can also revise its allocation of particular risks if the Proposers provide feedback that a different allocation is more beneficial to both parties. The fact that the industry review process is a confidential
+==139.8.2 Request for Proposals==
-process allows each proposer to candidly discuss the contents of the draft RFP without fear that its questions will be communicated to other proposers and “give away” its proposal strategies.
+[[image:139 I-64.jpg|right|310px|thumb|<center>'''The [http://www.thenewi64.org/ I-64] reconstruction project in St. Louis was selected as the 2010 America's Transportation Awards Grand Prize Winner by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AAA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. '''</center>]]
-Two processes that have been used on other design-build contracts but have not been used by MoDOT include Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) and Technical Approach (TA) processes. The purpose of the ATC/TA process is to give the proposers the
+Once the risk assessment and risk allocation processes have been completed by the project team, or are far enough along to provide adequate guidance, the [[media:139 I 64 RFP.pdf|Request for Proposal (RFP)]], or Phase 2, documents can be developed. An RFP defines the legal, technical and selection requirements for the project. It should be noted that development of the RFP must occur concurrently with the RFQ and short listing process in order to be meet the requirements for RFP release stated in the RFQ.
-opportunity to come up with innovative alternatives to the requirements in the RFP developed in accordance with MoDOT standards. The objective of the TA process is to provide the proposers with the opportunity to submit approaches to technical solutions in their proposals to MoDOT for a determination of whether the approach complies with the RFP. The ATC and TA submittals are confidential so that proposers will be encouraged to propose innovative, cost-effective solutions.
-Instead of using the ATC or TA process, MoDOT has been the national leader in providing less RFP requirements and solutions, and instead allowing each proposer to come up with its own innovative technical solutions in a manner that provides MoDOT
+===139.8.2.1 Purpose and Objective of the RFP Process===
-with a maximum scope for its project. MoDOT has found through experience that this method of working with the proposers encourages creativity and results in projects with more scope.
+There are three main objectives of the Request for Proposals process. First, the RFP provides clear, concise and flexible technical requirements that will promote a quality project and will become the contract documents. Second, the RFP provides contract terms that fairly allocate risk between MoDOT and the contractor. Last, the RFP details the contractor selection criteria that are designed to achieve or exceed the project goals. Throughout the design-build process, it is important to use the philosophy, “write what you mean, say what you mean, do what you say/write.” The result is an RFP that clearly describes and defines the “must have” requirements for the project while allowing the maximum amount of flexibility for the proposers.
-MoDOT will issue addenda after the final RFP has been issued. The purpose of the addenda process is to allow MoDOT to supplement and make corrections to the final RFP.
+To maintain flexibility in the RFP, project teams should define ONLY minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for each technical discipline. This allows each proposer to submit FHWA approved standards, specifications, designs and approaches that have been used on other projects.  The proposed approaches should be approved unless there is a reason that the approach cannot apply in Missouri or in the specific project’s situation.
-====139.1.5.2 Contents of the RFP====
+===139.8.2.2 Request for Proposals Process (Phase 2)===
-'''RFP Documents.''' The Instructions to Proposers (ITP) is used to provide proposers with instructions on the form and content of their proposals. The ITP includes instructions to the proposers on the form and contents of the proposal. The ITP also includes instructions on how to propose project scope and standards, specifications and requirements in the proposal.
+Shortly after the short list developed in Phase 1 (the RFQ process) is announced for a project, the RFP is released.  In order to maintain confidence in the process and to meet our obligations, it is critical to release the RFP on or before the date committed to in RFQ.
-In addition to instructions to the proposers on what to include in the proposals, the ITP includes a description of the criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals and the formula or methods used to score them. An example of the specific issues that traditionally are found in the ITP is included in [[#139.1.5.3 Example|EPG 139.1.5.3 Example]] below.
+The RFP is typically released via an external SharePoint site, which set up specifically for the project. The Project Director should contact the Design-Build Coordinator or the IS department to get the site set up.  The site will contain a “MoDOT” folder, where MoDOT can post information for all teams to see, as well as individual team folder for each short-listed team.  Only the individual team and MoDOT can see each respective individual team folder.  Once the SharePoint site is set up, each short-listed team shall be granted access to the MoDOT folder and their respective individual team folder. The SharePoint site will be used throughout the RFP (Phase 2) process to communicate with proposers, send and receive documents and to receive the proposals.
-Examples of areas included in Book 1 of the RFP include:
+====139.8.2.2.1 Optional Draft RFP ====
+In some cases, the project team may choose to release a draft RFP in advance of the RFP release.  This is known as an “industry review” and would typically be used only on very large projects or on projects using new and different procurement strategies or atypical risk assignments.  The purpose of the industry review is to give the design-build industry the opportunity to voice questions or concerns in a confidential setting. Through the process, issues or unclear provisions in the draft RFP can be clarified or revised based on the feedback of the proposers. The allocations of specific risks can also be revised if the proposers provide feedback that a different allocation is more beneficial to both parties. The fact that the industry review process is a confidential process allows each proposer to candidly discuss the contents of the draft RFP without fear that their questions will be communicated to other proposers and minimizes the potential to “give away” its proposal strategies.  After the draft RFP process, a “final” RFP will be issued.  If a draft RFP process is pursued, the specifics and appropriate timeline should be reflected in the procurement schedule defined in the RFQ.
-:A. A description of the contract documents and how they are to be interpreted, e.g., order of preference of the books included in the contract documents, federal requirements, project deadlines, and definitions applicable to all of the RFP documents.
+====139.8.2.2.2 Confidential Meetings ====
+Once the final RFP is issued, the project team will conduct one-on-one confidential meetings with each of the shortlisted design-build proposers to allow them to submit their proposed scope ideas and proposed standards and designs that have been approved on other projects. This process allows the proposers to submit alternative approaches and creative solutions for approval. The project team should provide the proposers feedback on what it values according to the project goals related to the proposals without leading the proposers to technical approaches they may prefer. The discussions with individual proposers are confidential so that proposers will be encouraged to propose innovative, cost-effective solutions.
-:B. A description of the legal obligations of the design-build contractor, including performance of all of the work in accordance with the RFP requirements and responsibility for final design.
+Typically, the meetings are held at the Proposers place of business (in the same region as the project) and will be limited to a specified number of hours and times per week, usually once per week or once every-other week.  The proposers establish the agendas for the meetings.  The agendas for the meetings are provided to the project team at least two business days prior to each meeting so key discipline leads may attend.
-:C. Information supplied to the design-build contractor and the legal significance of the information.
+The proposers may present technical solutions during the meetings.  If the proposer desires, a preview of the technical concepts can be accommodated in advance of the meetings by posting the information to a secure project SharePoint site.  The project team will provide verbal feedback to the Proposers on whether the proposed technical solutions achieve or exceed the project goals and meet the requirements of the RFP.  Additionally, potential improvements such as Project definition changes, moving focus from one technical area to another and changes within a technical area may be identified and discussed.  It is very important, however, that the playing field be kept equal for all potential bidding teams.  The project team will not provide solutions to the proposers. The project team will provide consistent answers to questions in each confidential meeting to keep a level playing field.
-:D. Requirements for notice to proceed, scheduling and project completion. A provision that is unique to the design-build process is issuance of a notice-to proceed that allows the design-build contractor to begin construction of the project only after submitting a cost-loaded schedule that is necessary for MoDOT to make monthly progress payments to the design-build contractor as the work progresses.
+====139.8.2.2.3 Requests for Clarification====
+During the meetings, proposers may request clarifications to the RFP.  It is important that proposers understand throughout this process that critical issues identified may require an RFP addenda, which once identified, is shared with all short listed teams and that the project team reserves the right to do so at the start of the process.  The proposers may request clarifications to the RFP informally during the confidential meetings, or formally in writing.  The project team may provide responses to informal requests verbally during the confidential meetings or may request that the request for clarification be submitted formally.  Formal requests must be submitted on [[media:139.8.2.2(a).xls|Requests for Clarification (RFC) (Form 139.8.2.2(a))]].  The project team will determine if its responses need to be provided to all teams, on the master RFC form or to just the requesting team.  Prior to responding to all teams using the master RFC Form, the specific proposer making the request will be informed of the determination that the master RFC is required and will be provided the opportunity to withdraw the question.  However, the project team must reserve the right to issue RFP addenda if an issue is raised that must be corrected.  Responses to formal requests will be posted on the project's SharePoint site.
-:E. Change order procedures, including right of way and utility work that is added or deleted from the scope of the design-build contractor’s work in the RFP. Design-build RFPs include the traditional value engineering provisions, however, a unique concept that has been developed to give the design-build contractors flexibility is the “Equal or Better” process, which allows the design-build contractor to propose innovative, cost-saving solutions in lieu of the RFP requirements. As long as these proposed solutions are equal to or better than the requirements of the RFP, the design-build contractor recognizes the cost savings from using the alternatives.
+====139.8.2.2.4 Additional Applicable Standards (AAS) and Design Exceptions ====
+AASs and Design Exceptions shall be submitted by each proposer using forms provided in the RFP.  AASs should be submitted using [[media:139.8.2.2(b).xls|Form 139.8.2.2(b)]].  Design exceptions must be documented on the [[media:139.8.2.2(c).xls|Design Exceptions Fomm (Form 139.8.2.2(c))]] and detailed on the [[media:139.8.2.2(d).docx|Design Exception Information Form (Form 139.8.2.2 (d))]].  Proposers shall be responsible for submitting enough information about the AAS or DE so that it can be adequately evaluating.  The project team should encourage submittals of AASs and DEs early in the technical discussions. The project team will provide feedback regarding the acceptability of the AASs and design exceptions either verbally during the meetings or in writing (via e-mail or the secure SharePoint site).  The project team will also consult with FHWA to obtain concurrence or approval, as described in the [[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement]].
-:F. DBE, EEO, subcontractor, labor requirements and key personnel requirements. The DBE requirements are modified for the design-build process, since the design-build contractor does not have the final design when it submits its proposal and therefore it cannot name all of its DBEs at the time of the proposal. The key personnel concept allows MoDOT to define certain key personnel positions on the project that, once identified by the design-build contractor, require MoDOT approval before the design-build contractor is allowed to switch and replace the positions.
+====139.8.2.2.5 Environmental Commitments and Access Justification Reports====
+For some projects environmental commitments have been made prior to the RFP.  In these instances it is important to document environmental commitments, and evaluate any proposed changes to the commitments.  In these cases, the project team will provide a list of environmental commitments in a spreadsheet.  In accordance with the RFP, a NEPA re-evaluation or revision may be required, depending on the content of each Proposal.  As described in the [[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement]], to prepare for any potential revision, each proposer may be asked to use the [[media:139.8.2.2(e).xls|Environmental Commitments Form (Form 139.8.2.2(e))]] to request any commitment revisions.  This form may not be necessary for all projects.
-:G. Surety bond, insurance, maintenance responsibilities, suspension, termination, default, damages and indemnification provisions.
+For some interstate projects, an Access Justification Report may be required. As described in the FHWA Design-Build Program Agreement, to prepare for a potential AJR revision, a proposer may be asked to submit a draft AJR revision, in advance of their proposal submittal to obtain concurrence from FHWA.
-:H. Partnering and dispute resolution provisions.
+====139.8.2.2.6 RFP Revisions ====
+The RFP should be continually reviewed as it is developed and throughout the RFP process, during the industry review process, if used, after the RFP has been finalized, and during the confidential one-on-one meetings. Once the RFP is issued, the project team will issue addenda as necessary, which will be incorporated into the final contract between MoDOT and the design-build contractor. The purpose of the addenda process is to supplement and make corrections to the RFP. In the typical case when no draft RFP is issued, the addenda process can be used to clarify risk allocations or make certain contract provisions more clear. However, major changes to the RFP requirements should be avoided, especially late in the process.
-:I. Miscellaneous legal requirements, including provisions related to acceptance, warranties, document requirements, and cooperation and coordination with others.
+===139.8.2.3 RFP Documents===
+The RFP consists of the following documents:
-In preparing the technical requirements, MoDOT will evaluate its standard operating requirements and procedures and modify them, where appropriate, to better fit the flexible design-build process and conform to the risk allocation decisions applicable to the project. In preparing Book 2, MoDOT will negotiate and include known third party requirements to further define for the design-build contractor the minimum applicable requirements. An objective of Book 2 is achievement of the delicate balance of including adequate definition of the minimum acceptable requirements applicable to the project
+:*	Book 1 – Contract language
-while providing the design-build contractor with the maximum extent of flexibility possible. An example of the technical areas included in Book 2 is set forth below in [[#139.1.5.3 Example|EPG 139.1.5.3 Example]].
+:*	Book 2 – Performance requirements
+:*	Book 3 – Applicable standards
+:*	Book 4 – Contract drawings, documents and reports
+:*	Book 5 – Informational (or reference) documents
+:*	Instructions to Proposers (ITP)
-The general technical areas that are addressed in Book 2 include:
+Normally, Books 3, 4 and 5 simply include an index of referenced documents. However, if these referenced documents are not generally available, MoDOT should place them on the project SharePoint site or make copies of each and provide them to the short-listed proposers.
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
+|[[media:139 I 64 RFP.pdf|A sample RFP is available]].
+|}
-:A. Basic Configuration. The basic configuration concept is the “envelope” of right of way and physical requirements that the design-build contractor will have to meet to design and construct the project. The basic configuration is determined by MoDOT either by utilizing the design in the environmental documents prepared for FHWA approval of the project, or a revised minimum amount of design necessary to allow MoDOT to further refine the “envelope” for the proposers. Refer to [[#139.1.6 Basic Configuration|EPG 139.1.6 Basic Configuration]].
+Books 1-4 and the accepted proposal are combined to create the official contract, once the project is awarded and the final negotiations process is complete.  Book 5 is for information only and not contractual.
-:B. Project Management. The project management requirements include the invoicing and scheduling requirements necessary to manage the project.
+====139.8.2.3.1 Book 1====
+The purpose of Book 1 (also referred to as the “contract”) is to define the legal parameters of the design-build contract and to provide for flexibility for the design-build contractor. The requirements for payment, change orders, project acceptance and dispute resolution are included here.  This book designates the areas where, after award of the contract, the design-build contractor has the flexibility to propose cost-savings changes to the contract requirements that are equal to or better than the technical requirements. Additionally, this book distinguishes the specific areas where cost savings proposals are treated as value engineering proposals.  Book 1 is fairly standard and does not typically change much from project to project, except for insurance amounts, mobilization payments, liquidated damages, escrow requirements or other project specific values.
-:C. Quality Management
+A critical exhibit to Book 1 is the definitions exhibit, applicable to all of the RFP documents. Many definitions in the RFP are unique to the Design-Build process and have been changed from the traditional design-bid-build definitions to conform to the risk allocation decisions that have been made for the project.  In order to understand the technical requirements of the RFP, it is necessary to understand the applicable definitions.
-:D. Public Information. The public information requirements define the responsibilities for the design-build contractor for certain communication efforts that traditionally are the responsibility of MoDOT but which in the design-build context are best given to the design-build contractor.
+Examples of areas included in Book 1 include:
-:E. Environmental Requirements
+:1.	A description of the contract documents and how they are to be interpreted, e.g., order of precedence of the books included in the contract documents, federal requirements, project deadlines, and definitions applicable to all of the RFP documents.
+:2.	A description of the legal obligations of the design-build contractor, including performance of all of the work in accordance with the RFP requirements and responsibility for final design.
+:3.	Information supplied to the Design-Build contractor and the legal significance of the information.
+:4.	Requirements for notice to proceed (NTP), scheduling and project completion. A provision that is unique to the design-build process is issuance of a notice-to proceed that allows the Design-Build contractor to begin construction of the project only after submitting a cost-loaded schedule that is necessary for MoDOT to make monthly progress payments to the design-build contractor as the work progresses.   Another unique provision is that there are two NTPs on design-build.  The first NTP releases the contractor to begin design.  The second NTP releases the contractor to begin construction.
+:5.	Change order procedures, including right of way and utility work that are added or deleted from the scope of the design-build contractor’s work in the RFP. Design-Build RFPs include the traditional value engineering change proposal provisions, however, a unique concept that has been developed to give the design-build contractors flexibility is the “Equal or Better” process, which allows the design-build contractor to propose innovative, cost-saving solutions in lieu of the RFP requirements. As long as these proposed solutions are equal to or better than the requirements of the RFP, the design-build contractor realizes the cost savings from using the alternatives.
+:6.	DBE, EEO, subcontractor, labor requirements and key personnel requirements. The DBE requirements are modified for the design-build process, since the Design-Build contractor does not have the final design when it submits its proposal and therefore it cannot name all of its DBEs at the time of the proposal. The key personnel concept allows certain key personnel positions to be defined. Once identified by the Design-Build contractor, the contractor must obtain approval before replacing personnel in a key personnel position.
+:7.	Surety bond, insurance, maintenance responsibilities, suspension, termination, default, damages and indemnification provisions.
+:8.	Partnering and dispute resolution provisions.
+:9.	Miscellaneous legal requirements, including provisions related to acceptance, warranties, document requirements, and cooperation and coordination with others.
+:10.	The process for distributing the stipend to unsuccessful but responsive proposers.  The stipend payment transfers ownership of ideas and intellectual property of both the successful and qualifying unsuccessful proposers. As described in the design-build rules, the stipend amount determination may consider: (A) Project scope; (B) Substantial opportunity for innovation; (C) The cost of submitting a proposal; (D) Encouragement of competition; (E) Compensate unsuccessful proposers for a portion of their costs (usually one-third to one-half (1/3 to 1/2) of the estimated proposal development cost); and (F) Ensure that smaller companies are not put at a competitive disadvantage.
-:F. Third Party Agreements
+====139.8.2.3.2 Book 2====
+Book 2 provides the project specific technical requirements of the RFP. The purpose of the technical requirements is to define the “box” that the design-build contractor needs to stay within in designing and building the project. To invite innovation, the technical requirements should be as flexible as possible to maximize the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals. However, if there are specific items that are absolutely required as part of the project, those should be specifically identified.  Book 2 can also include items not typically found in any state specifications but could be considered special provisions to a particular project, such as environmental requirements, third party agreement requirements or public information requirements.
-:G. Utility Relocations. Since the final design is not known at the time of the proposal, a different type of master utility agreement that defines a process that the utility owner, MoDOT and the design-build contractor will follow is typically required to successfully accommodate utility relocations in a design-build project.
+In preparing the technical requirements, standard operating requirements and procedures may be modified, where appropriate, to better fit the flexible design-build process and conform to the risk allocation decisions applicable to the project. Requirements detailed in third party agreements shall be negotiated with the third party as required to further define the minimum applicable requirements. Although difficult, an objective of Book 2 is to balance defining the minimum acceptable requirements applicable to the project while providing the design-build contractor with the maximum flexibility possible.
-:H. Right of way
+This book outlines deliverables, the timing of them, and whether items are for approval or not.
-:I. Geotechnical, Roadway Pavements and Structure Foundations
+The general technical areas that are addressed in Book 2 include:
-:J. Earthwork
+:'''1.	Basic Configuration.''' The basic configuration provides the overview of the final product, or what the project will achieve when it is completed. It is a concept of the “envelope” of right of way and physical requirements that the design-build contractor will have to design and construct the project. The basic configuration is usually based upon the design in the environmental documents prepared for FHWA approval of the project.  However, if no design of this nature exists or if the environmental document design does not adequately define the “envelope”, the basic configuration may be based upon design work performed specifically for this purpose.  MoDOT typically uses broadly defined basic configuration definitions to promote design flexibility, and does not include preliminary design requirements.
-:K. Drainage
+:The purpose of the Basic Configuration definition is to define the degree of design flexibility provided to the design-build contractor and the degree to which the design–build contractor can rely upon the owner-supplied preliminary design included in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
-:L. Roadways
+:In order to provide the design-builder with the most design flexibility, any owner-supplied preliminary design work should be provided for “information only”. By doing this, the design-build contractor is not required to follow the preliminary design but, in return, cannot rely upon the preliminary design documents included in the RFP. Since there usually are key project components that are identified in the preliminary design that form the foundation of a project’s scope, the MoDOT project team could choose to include those key project components in a basic configuration definition and thereby make the referenced components contract requirements.
-:M. Signing, Pavement Marking, Signalization, Lighting and Intelligent Transportation Systems
+:The basic configuration concept serves the following purposes:
+::a. It allows the MoDOT project team to define the minimum requirements or “must have” project components.
+::b. It defines the basic elements of the project from which the Design-Build contractor may not deviate without an Project Director approved change order.
+::c. It defines which elements of the preliminary design, if any, are contract requirements.
+::d. It allows the MoDOT project team to define the degree of flexibility provided to the design-build contractor in its design of major project elements, usually referred to as the “design window”.
+::e. It allows the Design-Build contractor to incorporate changes to the provided preliminary design within the defined “design window” which establishes design flexibility.
+::f. It gives the Design-Build contractor the flexibility to optimize their proposed design.
-:N. Structures
+:The contract documents contain provisions restricting the design-build contractor from making changes to the basic configuration without owner approval.  Additionally, provisions address that if the basic configuration is not constructible, the owner will pay the design-build contractor’s costs of correcting or addressing the problem. Therefore, the more defined the basic configuration, the more risk MoDOT assumes.
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
+|Examples of [[media:139 Sample Basic Configurations.pdf|Basic Configuration definitions on MoDOT design-build Projects are available]].
+|}
-:O. Method of Handling Traffic
+:The Basic Configuration definition usually includes a general description of the project termini, right of way limits, the general types and locations of interchanges and the numbers of lanes and lane widths. MoDOT’s approach is to limit the basic configuration definition to the minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for the project, e.g., right of way limitations based on intergovernmental agreements.
-:P. Landscaping
+:'''2.	Project Management.''' The project management performance requirements include the invoicing, scheduling and co-location requirements necessary to manage the project.
-:Q. Maintenance During Construction
+:'''3.	Quality Management.''' Defines the quality management performance requirements for the project, including required Quality Manual information, materials management and quality oversight.
-:R. Modifications to Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. While most of the standard specifications and special provisions are applicable to design-build projects, many of them must be modified in some manner to reflect the design-build process. As an example, the price adjustments for nonconforming but acceptable work are applicable to design-build projects, but design-build projects have no unit prices that are contemplated in the standard specifications. The specification or special provision must, therefore, be modified for the design-build process.
+:'''4.	Public Information.''' The public information performance requirements may define the responsibilities for the design-build contractor in regards to certain communication efforts, including the timelines for requests for information and emergency situations.
-Book 3 includes two categories of documents. The first category includes project-specific data, agreements, permits and reports. Some examples of Book 3 documents include agreements that the design-build contractor will be required to comply with between MoDOT and third parties, permits that MoDOT has obtained for the project, and applicable NEPA environmental documents. Book 3 may also include geotechnical or hydrological data, studies and reports if MoDOT decides during the risk assessment/risk allocation process to stand behind those reports. (If MoDOT does not intend to stand behind any of those reports, they should be included in the reference documents described below). The second category of Book 3 documents are federal standards and requirements applicable to all MoDOT projects and the contractor’s proposed standards, requirements and specifications. For example, AASHTO standards, ANSI standards, FHWA guidelines and MoDOT or other DOT and FHWA applicable design standards are included in Book 3. Since design manuals have been written as internal, guidance documents, MoDOT must review design manuals and ensure that their provisions are enforceable, either by incorporating enforceable requirements in Book 2 or by making revisions to the manuals in Book 3. Book 3 documents include those that have been proposed by the design-build contractor and approved by MoDOT.
+:'''5.	Environmental Requirements.'''  This section defines the minimum environmental performance requirements for the project, typically outlined from the approved project environmental documents.
-The most important analysis for MoDOT to perform is a determination of which of the documents it will accept the risk of accuracy (Book 3, applicable standards, data and reports) and which will be provided to the design-build contractor for information only (reference documents).
+:'''6.	Third Party Agreements.'''  This section includes a summary of third party agreements and related minimum performance requirements including finalized and future agreements.
-Book 4 documents include the project right of way plans and any requirements from which the design-build contractor cannot deviate except through a value engineering change order. These documents include the right-of-way plans and standards such as architectural requirements that may be required for the project’s corridor.
+:'''7.	Utility Relocations.''' Since the final design is not known at the time of the proposal, a master utility agreement that defines the processes that the utility owner, MoDOT and the design-build contractor will follow is typically required.  This section includes performance requirements regarding utility tracking reporting and the work order process.
-Reference documents include any preliminary reports or design documents that have been prepared for the project, the accuracy of which MoDOT does not guarantee. The reference documents are provided to the design-build contractor for information only, and the contractor is not entitled to a change order for any errors in them.
+:'''8.	Right of Way.'''  This section communicates performance requirements regarding right of way, including rules and risk allocations for additional acquisitions, if needed.
-Normally what is included in Books 3 and 4 of the RFP documents and in the reference documents is an index to each of those documents. However, for the documents that are not generally available, MoDOT should make copies of each of those documents available to each of the short-listed proposers.
+:'''9.	Survey.'''  Provides survey control and datum performance requirements and other survey performance requirements.
-'''RFP Process.''' Once the RFP documents have been drafted and the most qualified proposers have been selected (see [[#139.1.4 Request for Qualifications|EPG 139.1.4 Request for Qualifications]]), MoDOT will conduct an industry review process to meet with the design-build contractors who have been short-listed to give them the opportunity to comment on and request clarifications of the draft RFP. Based upon the industry comments, MoDOT may elect to revise and/or clarify the RFP documents before finalizing them.
+:'''10.	Geotechnical and Earthwork.'''  This section details the geotechnical report and assigns risk regarding provided geotechnical borings.
-Once the final RFP is issued, MoDOT will conduct confidential meetings with the shortlisted design-build proposers to allow them to submit their proposed scope ideas and proposed standards and designs that have been approved on other projects. This process allows the proposers to submit to MoDOT for approval alternative approaches to certain requirements in the RFP and creative solutions to the problems the project is intended to correct. MoDOT should provide the proposers feedback on what it values related to the proposals without leading the proposers to technical approaches it prefers. The discussions with individual proposers are confidential so that proposers will be encouraged to propose innovative, cost-effective solutions.
+:'''11.	Signing, Pavement Marking and Lighting.'''  This section provides minimum performance requirements for signing, pavement markings and lighting.
-MoDOT will continually review the RFP documents as they are developed through the RFP process, during the industry review process and after the RFP has been finalized. Once MoDOT has issued the final RFP, MoDOT will issue addenda to the final RFP, as necessary, which addenda will be incorporated into the final contract between MoDOT and the design-build contractor. MoDOT should attempt to avoid last minute major changes to the RFP requirements.
+:'''12.	Drainage.'''  This section provides minimum performance requirements for drainage.
-====139.1.5.3 Example====
+:'''13.	Roadways and Pavements.'''  This section provides minimum performance requirements for roadways and pavements, including AJR, local road, driveway and bicycle and pedestrian requirements.
-An example of the RFP documents is included for reference. (Attach the New I-64 RFP as the example).
-===139.1.6 Basic Configuration===
+:'''14.	Signals and Intelligent Transportation Systems (Traffic Management Systems).''' This section provides minimum performance requirements for traffic management systems.
-Design-build procurements, which typically rely on some level of an owner-supplied preliminary design as the basis for obtaining proposals on a project, often include requirements relating to the “Basic Configuration” of the project. As shown by the examples below, Basic Configuration definitions vary in style from broadly defined to complex, intricate concepts.
-====139.1.6.1 Purpose and Objective of the Basic Configuration====
+:'''15.	Structures.'''  This section provides minimum performance requirements for structures.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
-|-
+:'''16.	Maintenance of Traffic.'''  This section provides minimum performance requirements for the maintenance of traffic plan, traffic control plans and detours.
-|IT IS ADVANTAGEOUS TO PROVIDE THE DESIGN-BUILDER WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF DESIGN FLEXIBILITY
-|}
-The purpose of the Basic Configuration definition is to define the degree of design flexibility provided to the design-build contractor and the degree to which the design–build contractor can rely upon the owner-supplied preliminary design included in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
+:'''17.	Maintenance during Construction.'''  This section provides minimum performance requirements for maintenance during construction and assigns risk for project maintenance during the design-build contract.
-Design documents, to a great extent, define the requirements or “scope of work” for a contractor using the traditional design-bid-build method of project delivery. However, in design-build delivery, it is advantageous to provide the design-builder with a high degree of design flexibility by including any owner-supplied preliminary design in the RFP as “information only”. By doing this, the design-build contractor is not required to follow the preliminary design but, in return, cannot rely upon the preliminary design documents included in the RFP. However, there usually are key project components that are identified in the preliminary design that form the foundation of a project’s scope. In these instances, the owner can choose to include those key project components in a basic configuration definition therefore making the referenced components contract requirements. In most cases, at least part of the basic configuration definition is based on the preliminary design documents. Although the design-build contractor cannot rely upon the accuracy of the owner-supplied preliminary design, they can rely upon portions
+:'''18.	Optional sections.'''  Project specific topics such as performance requirements for landscaping, aesthetics or safety can be included in this section.
-of the preliminary design that are included by reference into the basic configuration definition.
-The basic configuration concept serves the following purposes:
+:'''19.	Modifications to Standard Specifications and Special Provisions.''' While most of the standard specifications and special provisions are applicable to Design-Build projects, some of them must be modified in some manner to reflect the design-build process. As an example, the price adjustments for nonconforming but acceptable work are applicable to design-build projects, but design-build projects have no unit prices that are contemplated in the standard specifications. Therefore, if price adjustments are used for the project, the specification or special provision should be modified for the design-build process.
-:1. It allows the owner to define the minimum requirements or “must have” project components.
+====139.8.2.3.3 Book 3====
+Book 3 includes the applicable standards. In addition to the applicable standards, which include industry standards such as AASHTO and FHWA manuals and standards, the proposers can propose alternate FHWA approved standards, specifications and requirements.  Additionally, the proposers has the option of using MoDOT’s standards, specifications and requirements as a baseline and proposing alternative standards for specific portions of the project. The additional or alternate standards ultimately approved are referred to as “Additional Applicable Standards (AASs).”
-:2. It defines the basic elements of the project from which the design-build contractor may not deviate without an owner approved change order.
+Book 3 documents provide the design-build contractor the requirements that cannot be modified except through a value engineering and/or design exception process. As such, the risk of changes to Book 3 documents rest upon the design-build contractor.  If standards or specifications in Book 3 are amended after the proposals have been submitted at MoDOT’s request, MoDOT assumes the risk associated with these changes.
-:3. It defines which elements of the preliminary design are contract requirements.
+Book 3 documents include the federal standards and requirements applicable to all projects and the contractor’s proposed standards, requirements and specifications.  For example, AASHTO standards, ANSI standards, FHWA guidelines and MoDOT or other DOT and FHWA applicable design standards are included in Book 3. Even with the flexible design-build model, design-build contractor teams still have to meet quality & safety laws and requirements (federal and state). Since design manuals have been written as internal, guidance documents they must be reviewed to ensure that their provisions are enforceable, either by incorporating enforceable requirements in Book 2 or by making revisions to the manuals in Book 3.
-:4. It allows the owner to define the degree of flexibility provided to the design-build contractor in its design of major project elements – “design window”.
+====139.8.2.3.4 Book 4====
+The purpose of Book 4 is to provide the design-build contractor with the data, reports and studies for which MoDOT guarantees the accuracy and assumes the risk for any necessary changes.  Book 4 documents typically include the project right of way plans and any requirements from which the Design-Build contractor cannot deviate, such as architectural requirements that are applicable to the project’s corridor.  Specific sections of Book 2 are used to clarify the risk assignment of documents in Book 4.
-:5. It allows the design-build contractor to incorporate changes to the owner provided design within the defined “design window” – design flexibility.
+Some examples of Book 4 documents include third party agreements (those between MoDOT and an entity other than the design-build contractor) that the design-build contractor will be required to comply with, permits obtained for the project, and applicable NEPA environmental documents.  Book 4 may also include geotechnical or hydrological data, studies and reports, if the project team decides during the risk assessment/risk allocation process that the accuracy can be guaranteed. The most important analysis to perform is a determination of which of the documents it will accept the risk of accuracy (Book 4, contract drawings, data and reports) and which will be provided to the Design-Build contractor for information only (as reference documents in Book 5).
-:6. It can give the owner the ability to share in any cost savings associated with changes to the basic configuration – value engineering.
+====139.8.2.3.5 Book 5 (For Information Only)====
+The fifth group of documents in the RFP process is “reference documents”, which are informational only. The sole purpose of the reference documents is to provide the proposers with as much information as possible without guaranteeing the accuracy of the documents.
-:7. It allows the design-build contractor to rely on the owner provided basic configuration design elements for proposal pricing.
+Reference documents might include any preliminary reports or design documents that have been prepared for the project that are not included in any other book.  The reference documents are provided to the design-build contractor for information only, and the contractor is not entitled to a change order for any errors or omissions in them.
-:8. It gives the design-build contractor the flexibility to optimize its design.
+====139.8.2.3.6 Instructions to Proposers (ITP)====
+The purpose of the ITP is to define the expectations for the form and contents of the proposals and to describe the criteria that will be used for scoring. Specifying the format of the proposals ensures that the proposals will be uniform and easily comparable. Additionally, a uniform and consistent format focuses the proposers on the substantive contents of their proposals.
-When owners define the basic configuration for a project, the contract documents contain provisions restricting the design-build contractor from making material changes to the basic configuration without owner approval, but also providing that if the basic configuration is not constructible, the owner will pay the design-build contractor’s costs of fixing the problem.
+The ITP provides instructions on the required form and content of the proposals, as well as how to propose alternatives to the project scope and standards, specifications and requirements detailed in the proposal.  Additionally, the ITP includes a description of the criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals and the formula or methods used to score them.
-====139.1.6.2 Content of the Basic Configuration====
+The prioritized evaluation criteria provides insight to proposers on how to best meet the project goals. With well-defined scoring criteria, it should be evident how the scoring criteria relates to the project goals. The inclusion of this evaluation criteria is required by MoDOT statute and rules.
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
 |-
-|THE BASIC CONFIGURATION GIVES THE CONTRACTOR THE FLEXIBILITY TO OPTIMIZE ITS DESIGN
+|[[media:139 Sample Scoring Criteria.pdf|Examples of scoring criteria used on design-build Projects]] are available.
 |}
-The Basic Configuration definition usually includes the vertical and horizontal geometric limitations for the contractor on a project, as well as a general description of the project termini. The definition may also include general requirements such as the general types or sizes of bridges, right of way limits, the general types and locations of interchanges and the numbers of lanes and lane widths. MoDOT’s approach to defining basic configuration is to limit it to the minimum requirements that are absolutely necessary for the project, e.g., right of way limitations based on intergovernmental agreements.
+=====139.8.2.3.6.1 Contractor Selection Criteria=====
+======139.8.2.3.6.1.1 Purpose and Objective of the Selection Criteria======
+The selection criteria define not only how the proposals are going to be evaluated, but provide insight to the proposers about the relative importance of the various elements of the project and project goals.  The primary objectives in developing the selection criteria is to demonstrate what requirements are most important, and to determine what criteria will help identify the best value proposal. The selection criteria are provided in the ITP in order to assist the proposers in tailoring their proposals to best meet the project goals.  Additionally, the ITP identifies the rules for the proposal process, such as how clarifications will be addressed, what communication will be allowed, what conflict of interest rules are applicable, and what laws and procedural requirements are applicable.
-====139.1.6.3 Examples of Basic Configuration Definitions====
+======139.8.2.3.6.1.2 Selection Criteria Process Options======
-Several examples of Basic Configuration definitions are included for reference.
+Pursuant to the design-build rules, the selection criteria options on a standard Design-Build selection include: lowest price, adjusted low-bid; meets criteria/low bid; weighted criteria process; fixed price/best design or “build to budget”; and best value.
-{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
+:1.	The “lowest price, adjusted low-bid” procedure is a process where the price of each proposal is divided by the respective proposals qualitative criteria score, and the lowest adjusted price is selected.
-|-
+:2.	The “meets criteria/low bid” procedure is a process where proposals must meet or exceed the criteria set forth in the RFP to be eligible and of the eligible proposals, the lowest priced proposal is selected.
-|align="center"|'''<sup>___</sup> NEW I-64 PROJECT <sup>___</sup>'''
+:3.	The “weighted criteria” process is a form of best value selection where maximum point values are pre-established for both qualitative and price criteria, and the award is made to the proposal with the highest point score.
-|-
+:4.	The “build to budget” selection is a form of the best value selection where the contract price is fixed, the qualitative criteria is set forth in the RFP, and the proposal that best meets or exceeds the qualitative criteria is selected.
-|align="center"|(highway reconstruction project, St. Louis, MO)
+:5.	The best value selection is determined based on which proposal best meets a combination of price and qualitative criteria.
-|}
-The Basic Configuration is defined as follows:
+The criteria that will be used to evaluate the “best value” for MoDOT on all of the above five processes are set forth in the Instructions to Proposers (ITP), which is issued simultaneously with the RFP. Pursuant to the design-build rules, the ITP will clearly specify all factors and significant sub-factors and their relative importance that will be used to select the proposal that provides the best value. The factors and sub factors should reflect the goals of the project.
-:* Direct interstate to interstate connections shall be provided at the junction of I-64 and I-170
-:* At least one additional mainline capacity lane shall be provided on I-64 from west of Spoede Road to I-170 in both directions
+======139.8.2.3.6.1.3 Selection Criteria Process Method Selection======
+The ITP will indicate the method that will be used to evaluate the selection criteria. The selection criteria should be focused on the identifying the proposal that best meets or exceeds the project’s goals. There are a number of common items found in many ITPs such as a description of the project, the RFP documents, the estimated cost of the project, the procurement schedule, the goals for the project, and the general procurement process, including the industry review procedure (if used). The selection criteria for each project should be unique and tailored to the desired outcome. While most of the following example issues are important, when developing the selection criteria, MoDOT will need to rank these and other project-specific criteria to determine which selection criteria process will best meet the project goals.
-:* All Work is to be constructed within the right of way shown in Book 4
+:*	What are the project goals?
+:*	Are there public involvement needs with the project?
+:*	How critical is inconvenience to the public important?
+:*	Would the project benefit from local design and construction experience?
+:*	How critical is a contractor’s design-build experience?
+:*	Are there environmental compliance needs?
+:*	How critical is the budget?
+:*	Would the project benefit from contractor partnering?
+:*	How critical is the schedule?
+:*	Is the contractor’s approach to quality management important?
+:*	Would the project benefit by providing additional flexibility to the contractor?
+:*	Are there critical management systems/philosophies?
-:* Scope elements included in the Contractor’s Proposal shall be incorporated into the Basic Configuration
+The selection criteria should communicate the expectations and desires for the project while being in line with the project goals.  When developing proposal scoring criteria, it is also important to ask, “How will this be scored?” to ensure the information requested in the RFP can be evaluated fairly in a short amount of time.
+=====139.8.2.3.6.2 Contents of the Instructions to Proposers=====
+The ITP should include a description of the definitions applicable to the proposals, the project goals, the maximum contract price, and the Basic Configuration (or “envelope”) available for the project. Many of the items described in the ITP may cross-reference the RFP.
-{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
+The ITP should specify which contractor team members are considered “Major Participants”.  These members will need to supply required information such as bonds and federal and state required certifications.” Since many proposing teams are joint ventures and these joint venture will only exist as related to the project, commitments and information are needed for the larger members of the joint venture teams.
-|-
-|align="center"|'''<sup>___</sup> EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR <sup>___</sup>'''
-|-
-|align="center"|(toll road project, Orange County, CA)
-|}
-(a) The mainline horizontal and mainline vertical alignments,
-:In determining whether a material change in Basic Configuration to the mainline alignment (item (a) of the Basic Configuration definition has occurred, the following standards shall apply: no material change in Basic Configuration shall be deemed to have occurred as the result of any horizontal alignment shift of the mainline of less than 50 ft. and/or any  vertical alignment shift of the mainline of less than two feet from the alignment shown on the Project Definition Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no change in the vertical alignment for the Oso Segment shall be considered a material change in Basic Configuration unless it causes any component of the Project or the Ultimate Corridor (including utility Relocations and drainage facilities but excluding private property access roads) to be located outside of the Agency Provided Construction Limits.
-(b) The general size, general location and type of bridges as defined by Caltrans Bridge Design Practice Manual No. 2,
+The ITP will also include a description of the proposal process, which provides for communications, industry review, discussions with proposers regarding their innovative ideas, submission of draft and final proposals and AASs. Confidential proposal discussions are used to provide the proposers with a maximum amount of flexibility while maintaining the requirements in the RFP.
-:In determining whether a material change in Basic Configuration to the general size of bridges (item (b) of the Basic Configuration definition has occurred, no material change in Basic Configuration shall be deemed to have occurred as the result of the change of the surface area of bridge, measured from inside face of parapet to inside surface of parapet and from beginning of bridge to end of bridge, of 5% or less.
-(c) The mainline and ramp Typical Roadway Sections set forth in Agency Supplied Document 22 as modified in order to incorporate the number of lanes identified in Agency Supplied Document 8,
+The ITP includes a format, or outline, for the proposals. As part of the format, it is beneficial to include as many forms as possible so it is clearly understood what information and in what form the proposal should be submitted.
-(d) The general location of the toll plazas,
+The critical element in the ITP is a description of how the proposals will be evaluated (the selection criteria). While the project team has broad discretion to determine the evaluation factors, budget and the quality of the service will always be included as factors for design-build projects. The specific rating method or combination of methods is clearly specified in the ITP, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankings.
-(e) The general location of interchanges and the type of interchanges, and
+The ITP should include the bonding requirements including the amount and the format for the bonds. Additionally, it should require the proposers to submit a detailed plan for meeting the project DBE goal or goals for design and construction. The evaluation of the proposals must be based solely on the factors and subfactors listed in the ITP.
-(f) The termini of the Project, as generally shown in the Project Definition Documents, at the existing Foothill Corridor (State Route 241), State Route 91, State Route 133/I-5 and Jamboree Road.
+The ITP should specify exactly what information is needed to evaluate the proposals. For example, the ITP may ask for the proposing team’s approach to quality management, and then may specify that the team needs to submit its approach and commitments to quality policy, planning, assurance, control and improvement. (As the best-value proposal becomes contractual, experience has shown that it is beneficial to require commitments from the proposers as well as approaches.)
+The ITP should include a list of required forms and reports that must be submitted with the proposals for evaluations.  These forms represent the proposer’s commitments and will be contractual.
-{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
-|-
-|align="center"|'''<sup>___</sup> ATLANTIC CITY/BRIGANTINE CONNECTOR <sup>___</sup>'''
 |-
-|align="center"|(highway and tunnel project, New Jersey)
+|[[media:139 I 64 ITP.pdf|A sample ITP]] is available.
 |}
-(a) The mainline horizontal and mainline vertical alignments, and
+The evaluation criteria should specify which criteria are pass-fail and how the remaining factors will be weighted. Weighting of the factors can be based on factors or can be broken down to subfactors.
-(b) The general location of interchanges and the type of interchanges.
+===139.8.2.4 Authorization to Release RFP===
+Authorization to advertise and release the RFP document must be provided by FHWA.  The project authorization given by FHWA will not be issued until the following are accomplished:
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
+|Details on project authorization are available in the [[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|FHWA/MoDOT Design-Build Program Agreement]]
+|}
+:*	FHWA Approval of the RFP
+:*	Project Certification
+:*	Approval of Project Financial Plan, if required.
-In determining whether a material change in Basic Configuration to the mainline alignment (item (a) of the Basic Configuration definition) has occurred, the following standards shall apply: no material change in Basic Configuration shall be deemed to have occurred as the result of any horizontal alignment shift of the mainline of less than 30 ft. and/or any vertical alignment shift of the mainline of less than 6 feet from the alignment shown on the Concept Design Documents.
+'''FHWA Approval to Release the RFP'''
-'''RFP FOR PROPOSED PUBLIC-PRIVATE TOLL ROAD PROJECT'''
+Following FHWA’s approval of the RFP, submittal of the written certification and review or approval of the project FP, the project must be approved by FHWA in the Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS), FHWA’s financial database.  The FMIS approval/authorization will constitute FHWA approval to release the RFP.
-a) Description of northern and southern limits, but states that work beyond the northern limit is not considered a material change in Basic Configuration.
+===139.8.2.5 Proposal Evaluations===
+When the final proposals and price allocations are received, the price allocations will be separated from the proposals and will not be opened until completion of the proposal evaluations. Before proposal evaluations begin, the proposal documents undergo a compliance review to ensure the proposal is a complete, responsive proposal.  Pursuant to state statute, at least two responsive proposals must be received in order to award the design-build contract.
-b) Specified number of lanes in each direction, not including the acceleration and deceleration lanes nor the climbing lanes where required.
+A confidential Proposal Evaluation Procedures document shall be created for each design-build project.  The document shall include details of maintaining confidentiality of the proposals, scoring team organization and roles, scoring procedures and evaluation criteria, including compliance reviews.  Each member of the scoring team shall sign the [[media:139.1.3.doc|Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3)]] and the [[media:139.8.2.5.doc|Proposal Conflict of Interest Form( Form 139.8.2.5)]]. Past experience has shown that holding preparation meetings with each scoring team in advance of receiving the proposals is very beneficial.  Teams should be reminded that the rating method specified in the ITP must be used.  After scoring is complete, The Project Director, with input from evaluation team members if needed, will prepare a Final Recommendation Report.
-c) Approximate location of interchanges and structures.
+An example of proposal rating criteria used on past projects is below.
-d) Specified number of lanes at Mainline Toll Plaza.
+<center>
+{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:left"
-e) General description of toll lanes on ramps.
+|+
+! width=250 style="background:#BEBEBE" |Rating!! width=650 style="background:#BEBEBE" |Description
-{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
 |-
-|align="center"|'''<sup>___</sup> T-REX (I-25 Southeast Corridor) <sup>___</sup>'''
+| align="center"|Exceptional +/–	||The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated requirements/objectives and provides a consistently outstanding level of quality.  There is little or no risk that the proposer would fail to significantly exceed the project goals.<br/>This rating is worth 85% – 100% of the available points.
 |-
-|align="center"|(highway and light rail transit project, Denver)
+| align="center"|Good +/–	||The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated requirements/objectives and offers a generally better than acceptable quality.  There is little risk that the proposer would fail to exceed the project goals.<br/>This rating is worth 60% – 84% of the available points.
 |-
-|align="center"|Light rail elements removed for simplicity
+| align="center"|Acceptable +/–	||The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated requirements/objectives and has an acceptable level of quality.  There is little risk that the proposer would fail to meet the project goals.<br/>This rating is worth 20% – 59% of the available points.
-|}
-(a) The general termini shall be as shown in the Reference Drawings.
-(b) The Highway horizontal and vertical alignments shall be as shown in the Reference Drawings. Additionally, the following shall be allowed without being considered a change to the Basic Configuration.
-:* The vertical alignment for the Highway may be changed up to 2 ft. down or 5 ft. up, except for the Southmoor area (defined as the area between Hampden Avenue and Quincy Avenue) which can be changed up to 2 ft. down or 2 ft. up.
-:* The horizontal alignment for the Highway may be changed up to 10 ft., or within the right of way limits as shown in Book 4, whichever is less, except for the east side of I-225 within property under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.
-(c) The type and general locations of interchanges shall be as shown in the References Drawings, and consistent with the following elements from the FHWA approved Interstate Access Modification request:
-:* Verification that the existing interchange and/or local roads in the Corridor cannot provide the necessary access, nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal.
-:* Verification that all reasonable alternatives for design options, location, and transportation system management type improvements have been assessed and provided for.
-:* Verification that the proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall include an analysis of sections of interstate to, and including at least the first adjacent interchange on either side, and shall include crossroads.
-:* Verification that the proposed access connects to a public road only, provides for all traffic movements, and meets or exceeds current standards for federal-aid projects on the interstate system.
-:* Verification that the proposed access is consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD).
-(d) The mainline and ramp number of lanes shall be as shown in the Reference Drawings, and in Book 3 - Laneage Line Diagram.
-(e) New structures spanning Arapahoe Road shall accommodate a future lane in each direction on Arapahoe Road.
-(f) The width of the completed Bridge carrying Evans over I-25 shall accommodate the ultimate future width of Evans.
-{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
 |-
-|align="center"|'''<sup>___</sup> COSMIX PROJECT <sup>___</sup>'''
+| align="center"|Poor	||The proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to fail to meet the stated requirements/objectives and/or provides unacceptable quality and/or demonstrates little reasonable likelihood of meeting the project goals.<br/>This rating is worth 0% – 19% of the available points.
 |-
-|align="center"|(highway project, Colorado)
+|colspan="2"|NOTE:  As used above +/– delineates the proposer’s rating within the related rating (i.e., + shall be considered as high within the rating and – shall be considered as low within the rating).
 |}
+</center>
+For the purposes of evaluating proposals, a strength represents a part of the proposal that ultimately represents a benefit to the project and is expected to increase the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
-'''1. Basic Configuration'''
+:*	Significant strength has a considerable positive influence on the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
+:*	Minor strength has a slight positive influence on the proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the project goals.
-The Basic Configuration is defined as work within the right of way that is required to conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 through Colorado Springs with interchange lane configurations and local street lane configurations and typical sections at selected locations as shown in the Reference Drawings. The general geographic limits of the Basic Configuration are graphically shown on Exhibit A - Basic Configuration and Temporary Configuration Diagram.
+For the purposes of evaluating Proposals, a weakness represents a part of the proposal that detracts from the proposer’s ability to meet the project goals or may result in inefficient or ineffective performance.
-The Basic Configuration is further defined as follows:
+:*	Significant weakness has a considerable negative influence on the proposer’s ability to meet the project goals.
+:*	Minor weakness has a slight negative influence on the proposer’s ability to meet the project goals.
-:1. Additional Requested Elements (AREs) and portions of AREs as shown on Exhibit B - Additional Requested Elements Diagram which are defined as Basic Configuration elements and are included in the Contractor’s Proposal shall be incorporated into the Basic Configuration.
+===139.8.2.6 Proposal Selection and Project Award===
+After proposal evaluations are complete, a proposal is selected and the Final Recommendation Report is generated.  This report, often in the form of a presentation, should include information on the scoring criteria, including the relationship between the scoring criteria and the project goals, a detailed synopsis of Proposals received and scoring outcomes for each category.
-:2. The interchange configurations shall be as shown on the Basic Configuration and Temporary Configuration Diagram, in the Interchange Access Report, and in the Reference Drawings.
+The Project Director will present the Final Recommendation Report to the Executive Recommendation Committee, which may includes the Director of Transportation, Chief Engineer, Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Chief Engineer and District Engineer.  Additionally, FHWA and Chief Counsel’s Office should be represented at the meeting. Please note that each member of the Executive Recommendation Committee shall sign a [[media:139.8.2.5.doc|Proposal Conflict of Interest Form (Form 139.8.2.5)]] and, if not previously signed, the [[media:139.1.3.doc|Confidentiality Agreement (Form 139.1.3)]].
-:3. The HOV lane width for the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 through Colorado Springs shall be 12 feet.
+The Executive Recommendation Committee will consider the supporting information and recommendation and will select the final apparent best value proposal, which will be presented to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC) in closed session.  The MHTC will consider the supporting information and final recommendation and will select the best value proposal. Upon selection, concurrence of the award shall be obtained from FHWA before the award is announced publicly.
-:4. Structures:
+Upon final selection of the best value proposal, all proposers should be notified whether or not they will be recommended as the best value proposer for the project.  The best value proposer should be asked to attend the public MHTC meeting in person.  At the public MHTC meeting, the Project Director will request the MHTC’s approval of the award and approval to negotiate the contract and pay the project stipend to the losing proposers. Once the project has been awarded, the best value proposal should be announced through a press release and/or posting on the project website.  Typically, a news conference has been held following the MHTC meeting to discuss the project details with the media in the project area.  The need for a news conference will be dependent on the size of the project and/or public interest in the project.
-::A. Retaining wall locations shall not require future wall removals to conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25.
-::B. Bridge superstructures for all I-25 mainline bridges are only required to be constructed to the laneage requirements below.
+'''Project Stipends'''
-::C. Bridge superstructures for the Bijou Street Bridges are required to be constructed to the Bijou Street laneage requirements below.
+After the project award is announced, the project team may elect to offer debriefing meetings to all proposing teams, including those that did not submit the best-value proposal, to give feedback on their proposals.  As described in the RFP, the stipend distribution process is followed.  Each losing team must sign a [[media:139.8.2.6.doc|Stipend Release Form (Form 139.8.2.6)]] before receiving a stipend for their proposal.   Once the Stipend Release Form has been completed and the stipend paid, the Commission retains the right to use ideas from both successful and unsuccessful proposers.  Proposers submitting non-responsive proposals are not eligible for payment of the stipend.
-:5. Pavements and laneage shall be as follows:
+===139.8.2.7 Contract Negotiations===
+The contract will be finalized through a negotiation process.  If no final agreement is reached between MoDOT and the proposer with the apparent best value proposal, MoDOT reserves the right to pay the stipend to the apparent successful proposer and to negotiate a contract with another proposer with the second highest score. Confidentiality remains critical until all stipends are paid and the contract executed.
-::A. Concrete pavement for the outside 3 through lanes of the I-25 mainline in each direction with auxiliary lanes for the following areas:
+During contract negotiations, the proposer with the best value proposal may review the other submitted proposals once the stipends have been paid.  Ideas from the other proposals may be negotiated and incorporated into the best value proposal with concurrence of the winning proposer.
-:::(1) From south of the Bijou Street bridge over I-25 to the match with the existing concrete pavement north of the Bijou Street bridge, except that the inside (left) shoulders shall be 4 ft. wide Hot Bituminous Pavement (HBP).
-:::(2) From north of the I-25 bridge over Garden of the Gods Road to the I-25 bridge over Cottonwood Creek, except that the inside (left) shoulders shall be 4 ft. wide HBP.
+=139.9 Contract Execution=
-::B. Concrete pavement for the ramp lanes and shoulders and collector-distributor lanes and shoulders at the Bijou interchange and Nevada/Rockrimmon interchange, as is defined in the Reference Drawings.
+==139.9.1 Project Management==
+Once a design-build contractor has been selected and a contract has been executed, there are several procedures that the project team can implement to help ensure success on the project. Effective processes will vary depending on the design-build contractor involved, the size of the project team and the size and complexity of the project.  However, it is important to continue to live the design-build values throughout the contract, focusing on “what the contract says” and always evaluating "want vs. need."
-::C. Additional concrete pavement for a 12 ft. inside (left) shoulder in each direction to provide 3 through lanes in each direction for the I-25 mainline from the I-25 bridge over Cottonwood Creek to the I-25 bridge over Pine Creek.
+After the contractor has been selected, the project management team should meet on a weekly basis and discuss the progress of partnering with the contractor. Ideally, the project team and the contractor team will be co-located and will have scheduled weekly meetings. The weekly meetings should be focused on managing delivery of the project, addressing any issues and maintaining the goals of the project.
-::D. HBP pavement for Bijou Street, excluding concrete pavement at I-25 ramp intersections, to provide:
+A partnering charter and process between MoDOT and the contractor is essential to a successful project. The charter establishes the general ground rules and processes which will be used as the two teams work together to deliver the project.  However, the MoDOT project team must remember that the contractor must comply with the terms of the contract documents above all else.  A common mistake on previous projects has been the failure to distinguish between contract compliance and being a “good partner.”  While on all projects there are times that it is appropriate to be flexible with a resolution to a specific problem, with design-build it is critical that the contractor complies with the terms of the contract documents.
-:::(1) 2 through lanes in each direction from Spruce Street to the southbound ramps at I-25 with an eastbound left turn lane to I-25 northbound and a westbound left turn lane to Spruce Street, and;
-:::(2) 3 through lanes in each direction from the northbound ramps at I-25 to approximately 600 ft. east of Sierra Madre Street with an eastbound auxiliary lane from the I-25 northbound off-ramp and a westbound right turn lane to northbound I-25, including a new fullwidth bridge over Monument Creek and the Union Pacific Railroad, and;
+It is often useful to have regular task force meetings where the MoDOT, the designer and the contractor discuss the progress being made, and resolve issues or disagreement as they occur.  Specific disciplines that may benefit from task forces meetings include roadway, drainage, structures, maintenance of traffic, quality and utilities.  MoDOT would then use internal management meetings with the project team to discuss any outstanding issues or conflicts identified in the task force meetings. Based upon the contract, responses are prepared and provided to the contractor team to resolve the issues in a timely fashion.
-:::(3) 2 through lanes westbound from east of Sierra Madre Street to North Cascade Avenue. Also included are a left turn lane and 1 lane connection from westbound Bijou Street to Kiowa Street and an auxiliary lane from southbound Cascade Avenue.
+Since each design-build project and each design-build contractor are different, project teams are encouraged to try to be flexible in the approach to the various processes.  However, experience has shown that for items such as change orders, potential disputes, and responses to the contractor, the more defined the internal processes are the smoother the project will proceed.
-::E. HBP pavement for Kiowa Street to provide 3 through lanes eastbound from west of Sierra Madre Street to North Cascade Avenue. Also included is a right turn lane connection from northbound Sierra Madre Street.
+==139.9.2 Contract Invoicing and Payment==
+Progress payments will be based on an estimate of physical percent complete of the work, not on measured quantities (except where specifically stated in the contract).  Progress payment amounts are calculated by multiplying the percent complete for each construction activity by the cost associated with that activity.  Monthly invoices are reviewed based on the contractor provided Work Breakdown Structure and Baseline Schedule or Recovery Schedule, as defined in the contract documents. After the invoice has been reviewed and approved by the project team, it must be submitted electronically to Financial Services at Contractual.Payments@modot.mo.gov.  The invoice submittal should include the following:
-::F. Minimum laneage requirements for the Bijou Street bridge over I-25 are 3 through lanes with a continuous left turn lane in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
+:*	Project Name
+:*	Project Number
+:*	Copy of the approved contractor invoice
+:*	Invoice number
+:*	Payment amount
+:*	Total payment amount to date.
-::G. HBP pavement for the extension of Corporate Drive to provide 1 through lane in each direction from the west ramps of I-25 and North Nevada Avenue approximately 800 feet to the north and east to its current cul-de-sac south terminus, including a new full-width bridge structure over Monument Creek.
+==139.9.3 Quality Oversight (Owner Acceptance)==
+MoDOT will use an audit approach for assessing the contractor’s performance. This will entail checking on a sampling basis whether the Work is complying with the requirements of the contract documents.
-:6. Stormwater Quality:
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
+|-
-:Permanent stormwater quality improvements shall conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 in both location and capacity.
+|A [[media:139 Sample Quality Oversight Plans.pdf|sample Quality Oversight Plan]] is available.
+|}
-:7. Alignments:
+At the completion of the project, MoDOT is required by [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title23-vol1/xml/CFR-2013-title23-vol1-part637.xml 23 CFR Part 637] to provide a materials certification for the project. The certification will conform in substance to Appendix A of 23 CFR Part 637 Subpart B. The certification will be prepared and submitted at the project level by persons intimately familiar with the project. The basis for the materials certification will be upon implementation of a quality assurance program meeting the criteria of 23 CFR Part 637.
-::A. The horizontal alignment of the highway, as shown in the Reference Drawings, may be changed up to 10 feet.
-::B. The vertical alignment of the highway, as shown in the Reference Drawings, may be changed up to 2 ft. down and 5 ft. up, except for the Bijou Street overpass area (defined as 100 ft. each side of the centerline of the Bijou Street bridge) where the vertical change shall be limited to 0.5 ft. down and 2 ft. up.
+An [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/12039/12039.pdf FHWA Technical Brief] regarding construction quality assurance for design-build highway projects]] is available.
-'''2. Temporary Configuration'''
+=139.10 Other Design-Build Procedures=
-The Temporary Configuration is defined as work within the right of way that is not required to conform to the 8 through-lane configuration of I-25 through Colorado Springs as shown in the Reference Drawings. The general geographic limits of the Temporary Configuration are shown on Exhibit A – Basic Configuration and Temporary Configuration Diagram.
-The Temporary Configuration also includes transition areas which transition from the existing highway, local streets, and temporary improvements to the I-25 mainline, ramps, collector-distributor roads, and local streets.
+==139.10.1 Project Reporting==
+Typically, design-build Project Directors are asked to attend the monthly Major Projects Meeting.  The Major Projects Meeting is an opportunity to update executive leadership on the project and discuss any potential project issues or concerns.  If a specific topic is confidential, a separate meeting should be set up with executive leadership.  Examples of items that can be discussed are:
-The Temporary Configuration is further defined as follows:
+:*	Project progress
+:*	Schedule
+:*	Budget/Finances
+:*	Risk Allocation
+:*	Procurement, right of way or legal needs
+:*	Quality
+:*	Safety
+:*	DBE
+:*	Project look ahead
-:1. Additional Requested Elements (AREs) as shown on Exhibit B - Additional Requested Elements Diagram which are defined as Temporary Configuration elements and are included in the Contractor’s Proposal shall be incorporated into the Temporary Configuration.
+==139.10.2 Design-Build Project Funding==
+===139.10.2.1 Program Budget and Project Coding===
+Establishing an accurate program budget is critical to a successful design-build project.  At a minimum, the following costs should be considered when setting the project budget:
-:2. Structures:
+:*	Consultants (working for MoDOT, outside the design-build contract)
-:The I-25 bridges over Ellston Street shall be widened and rehabilitated to accommodate 3 through-lanes on I-25 in each direction with 4 ft. inside (left) shoulders.
+:*	Project administration
+:*	Utility relocations
+:*	Stipends
+:*	Right of Way
+:*	Environmental mitigation
+:*	Internal staff
+:*	Design-Build contract (contractor design, administration and quality oversight should be considered as well as construction costs.  By breaking out the design, administration and quality costs, the dollar value of actual construction can be estimated.  For the sake of the program budget, this cost does not need to be broken out, but it is helpful to include when running scenarios of what may be proposed.)
+:*	Funding from Other Sources (FFOS) should be included on the SIMS form.  In the event that FFOS is added into the design-build contract via change order, the project team shall provide the change order information to [http://wwwi/intranet/tp/default.htm Transportation Planning] and [http://sharepoint/facilitation/CT/Pages/default.aspx Financial Services].
-:3. Transition areas shall be included at the following locations:
+All project costs are included in the [[121.3 The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)|STIP]].  The district submits the information to transportation planning including the total cost and an itemized breakdown of each cost included. Typically, project costs are broken down as follows:
-::A. Full-depth HBP from the north end of the I-25 bridge over Colorado Avenue to south of the Bijou Street bridge.
+:*	Construction costs include the design-build contract, non-contractual (other costs), MoDOT funded utility relocations and stipend payments (Misc.),
+:*	ROW is MoDOT funded right of way acquisition (including easements),
-::B. Full-depth HBP from the north end of the I-25 bridge over Garden of the Gods Road approximately 525 ft. north.
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="350px" align="right"
-:4. Widening areas shall be included at the following locations:
-::A. Full-depth HBP widening to the inside of I-25 in each direction including a full-width HBP overlay from south of the Fillmore Street interchange at the existing concrete pavement match point to south of the I-25 bridge over Garden of the Gods Road including:
-:::3 through-lanes in each direction, 4 ft. inside (left) shoulders and full-width outside (right) shoulders, signing, and pavement markings.
-::B. Full-depth HBP widening to the outside of I-25 in each direction including a full-width HBP overlay from the existing concrete pavement match point north of the I-25 bridge over Pine Creek to the south ramp gores at the Academy interchange including:
-:::3 through-lanes in each direction with 4 ft. inside (left) shoulders and full-width outside (right) shoulders, signing, and pavement markings.
-:5. Signing and pavement marking reconfigurations shall be included at the following locations:
-::A. From the existing concrete pavement match point north of the Bijou Street interchange to south of the Uintah Street interchange, reconfigure the existing outside shoulders on I-25 to provide an outside auxiliary lane with an 8 ft. shoulder in each direction.
-::B. From north of the Fontanero Street interchange to the existing concrete pavement match point south of the Fillmore Street interchange, reconfigure the existing outside shoulders on I-25 to provide an outside auxiliary lane with an 8 ft. shoulder in each direction.
-:6. North Nevada Avenue improvements shall be provided as follows:
-::A. HBP reconstruction from the existing Nevada Avenue alignment to meet the Basic Configuration from the Nevada Avenue/I-25 interchange to approximately 2500 ft. south of the interchange (to south of the Fellowship Bible Church entrance), including:
-:::(1) Reconstruction of the Fellowship Bible Church access.
-:::(2) Full movement access to the North Nevada Avenue Frontage Road approximately 400 ft. south of the intersection of North Nevada Avenue and the east ramps of I-25.
-:::Laneage shall provide 2 through lanes in each direction with a full-depth HBP paved median and a transition to the existing roadway.
-===139.1.7 Contractor Selection Criteria===
-The two-phased design-build procurement process begins with short-listing the most highly qualified Submitters based on qualifications submitted in response to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and secondly, selecting a design-build contractor based on the criteria that are set forth in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Pursuant to MoDOT’s design-build rules, 7 CSR 10-24.100, the selection criteria options on a standard design-build selection include: (1) lowest price, adjusted low-bid; (2) meets criteria/low bid; (3) weighted criteria process; (4) fixed price/best design; and (5) best value.
-The “lowest price, adjusted low-bid” procedure is a process where the price is divided by the qualitative criteria score, and the lowest adjusted price is selected. The “meets criteria/low bid” procedure is a process where MoDOT determines which proposals meet or exceed the criteria set forth in the RFP and then selects the lowest priced proposal. The “weighted criteria” process is a form of best value selection where maximum point values are pre-established for both qualitative and price criteria, and the award is made to the proposal with the highest point score. The “fixed price/best design” selection is a form of the best value selection where the contract price is set by MoDOT, the qualitative criteria is set forth in the RFP, and the proposal that best meets or exceeds the qualitative criteria is selected. The best value selection is determined based on which proposal best meets a combination of price and qualitative criteria.
-The criteria that will be used to evaluate the “best value” for MoDOT on all of the above four processes are set forth in the Instructions to Proposers (ITP), which document is issued simultaneously with the RFP. Pursuant to 7 CSR 10-24.200, the ITP will clearly specify all factors and significant sub-factors and their relative importance that will be used to select the proposal that provides the best value for MoDOT. The factors and subfactors should reflect the goals of the project.
-====139.1.7.1 Purpose and Objective of the Selection Criteria====
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
-|-
-|THE SELECTION CRITERIA SHOULD REFLECT THE PROJECT GOALS
-|}
-There are several objectives in establishing the selection criteria. The primary objective is to determine what requirements for a project are most important to MoDOT, and what criteria will identify to MoDOT the proposal that provides the best value. The ITP provides MoDOT with the opportunity to communicate to the proposers the relative importance of the criteria so that the proposers have the opportunity to tailor their proposals to best meet MoDOT’s goals and expectations.
-The ITP also allows MoDOT to identify the rules for the proposal process, such as how clarifications will be addressed, what communications will be allowed, what conflict of interest rules are applicable, and what laws and procedural requirements are applicable.
-The ITP should indicate the method that will be used to evaluate the selection criteria. Pursuant to 7 CSR 10-24.210, MoDOT can utilize any rating method or combination of methods including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankings.
-The selection criteria should be focused on the identifying the proposing team that best meets or exceeds the project’s goals. There are a number of common items found in many ITPs such as a description of the project, the RFP documents, the estimated cost of the project, the procurement schedule, the goals for the project, and the general procurement process, including an industry review procedure, the selection criteria for each project should be unique and tailored to MoDOT’s desired outcome. While MoDOT will consider most of the following example issues important, when developing the selection criteria, MoDOT will need to rank these and other project-specific criteria for each project:
-:* The project goals.
-:* Is the amount of public involvement during the project important?
-:* Is the amount of inconvenience to the public important?
-:* Is local design and construction experience and/or participation important?
-:* Is design-build experience important?
-:* Are environmental compliance issues important?
-:* Is the budget important?
-:* Is the contractor’s approach to partnering important?
-:* Is the schedule important?
-:* Is the contractor’s approach to quality management important
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
 |-
-|THE SELECTION CRITERIA SHOULD COMMUNICATE MODOT’S DESIRED OUTCOME FOR EACH PROJECT
+|A [[media:139 Financial Services Coding.pdf|matrix for coding design-build projects]] is avaialable
 |}
-:* Is flexibility for the contractor important?
+:*	Consultants outside of the design-build contract should be in the DBC budget or the district’s STIP construction budget,
-:* What management systems/philosophies are important, if any?
+:*	The PE phase should only be used for internal staff costs,
+:*	In some cases there may be preliminary engineering and/ or consultants set up prior to the project being selected for design-build, resulting in multiple project numbers included with the P phase. In this case, the district should provide a preliminary budget spreadsheet for the Financial Services Projects and Accounts Receivable Sections. Based on prior costs and how they fit in the project budget, Financial Services assesses what project numbers are needed and communicates back to the district.
-The selection criteria should communicate to the short-listed proposers MoDOT’s expectations and desires for the project. An effective set of criteria will result in high quality proposals.
-====139.1.7.2 Contents of the Instructions to Proposers====
-The ITP should include a description of the definitions applicable to the Proposals, the project goals, the maximum contract price (Upset Price or Guaranteed Maximum Price), and the Basic Configuration (or “envelope”) available for the project. Many of the items described in the ITP may cross-reference the RFP.
-The ITP should specify what level of team members need to supply the required information such as bonds and federal and state required certifications. The members of the team who must supply this type of information are called “Major Participants.” The
-reason it is necessary to define who is required to provide that information is that many proposing teams are joint ventures and the joint venture itself has no history and will not exist after completion of the project. So MoDOT needs commitments and information from the existing large members of the joint venture team.
-The ITP will also include a description of the proposal process, which includes procedures for communications, industry review, discussions with proposers regarding their innovative ideas, and submission of draft and final proposals and alternative applicable standards (AACs) for MoDOT to consider. If acceptable, the approved AACs are submitted in that proposer’s proposal. The confidential proposal discussions are used to provide the proposers with a maximum amount of flexibility while maintaining minimum requirements in the RFP that are enforceable by MoDOT.
-The ITP includes a format, or outline, for the proposals. As part of the format, it is beneficial for MoDOT to include as many forms as possible so it is clearly understood what information and in what form MoDOT expects to be submitted. The ITPs in
-paragraph IV have examples of forms that have been included on other projects.
-The “heart” of the ITP is a description of how MoDOT will evaluate the proposals for the project—the selection criteria. While MoDOT has broad discretion to determine the evaluation factors, price and the quality of the service will always be included as factors for design-build projects. (7 CSR 10-24.200). The factors to evaluate the quality of the proposals include, but are not limited to: (1) compliance with the solicitation requirements; (2) completion schedule; and (3) technical solutions. The ITP should include the bonding requirements including the amount and the format for the bonds. It should also include a requirement that the Proposers submit a detailed plan for meeting the project DBE goal or goals for design and construction. It is important to recognize that the evaluation of the proposals must be based solely on the factors and sub-factors
-listed in the ITP. (7 CSR 10-24.210).
-The ITP should specify in the outline for the proposals exactly what information MoDOT needs to perform its evaluation of the teams. For example, MoDOT may ask for the proposing team’s approach to quality management, and then may specify that the team
-needs to submit its approach and commitments to quality policy, planning, assurance, control and improvement. (Experience has shown that it is beneficial to require commitments from the proposers as well as approaches.)
-The evaluation criteria should specify which criteria are pass-fail and how the remaining factors will be weighted. Weighting of the factors can be based on factors or can be broken down to sub-factors. As stated previously, pursuant to 7 CSR 10-24.210,
+===139.10.2.2 Project Financial Plan===
-MoDOT can utilize any rating method or combination of methods including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankings. Whichever process that is used on a project, it should be described in the ITP.
+The project Financial Plan (FP) shall be developed in conformance with FHWA guidance. The following are guidelines for when an FP is required:
-====139.1.7.3 Examples of ITPs====
+:*	Projects with program costs under $100 million do not require an FP.
-Two examples of ITPs are included for reference. The New I-64 Project ITP is an example of a fixed price/best design procurement process. The kcICON Project ITP is an example of a fixed price/best design procurement process, with significant local influence.
+:*	Projects with program costs over $100 million but less than $500 million require an FP. No FHWA approval of the FP is required, but FHWA review of the FP is required. Approval of the project FP will be provided by the Chief Financial Officer, or the CFO’s representative.
+:*	Projects with program costs over $500 million require FHWA review and approval of the FP.
-==139.2 Implementation Procedures==
+==139.10.3 File Storage Structure==
-{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="160px" align="right"
+{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="450px" align="right"
 |-
-|POLICIES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS
+|To maintain consistency in design-build projects, project teams should set up their electronic file storage as shown in the [[media:139 File Storage Structure.pdf|Document Structure Template]].
 |}
-Once a design-build contractor has been selected and a contract has been executed, there are several procedures that MoDOT can implement to ensure success on the project. This EPG 139.2 identifies procedures, processes and policies that have been effective in managing design-build projects. Effective processes will vary depending on the design-build contractor involved, the size of MoDOT’s oversight team and the size and complexity of the project.
+Many design-build files are confidential, requiring the project SharePoint site to have access restricted to those members of the project team.  Some folders can be given “read” or “contribute” access on an as needed basis for other staff assisting the project team.
-===139.2.1 MoDOT Management===
-Once top management at MoDOT has identified to a project team its objectives in addition to obtaining innovative solutions that provide for additional scope, an important policy for management is to empower the MoDOT project team to implement the procurement and oversight of the project. The confidence shown by MoDOT management provides the project team with credibility with the proposers during the procurement phase of the project, and with the selected design-build contractor during implementation. In addition, when the proposers perceive that management has delegated to and has confidence in the project team members, there is no temptation to attempt to “go over the heads” of the team members to pressure MoDOT management
-into making decisions that may conflict with the decisions of the project teams.
-===139.2.2 Project Implementation===
-There are several effective tools for a project manager (director) and project team to assist in implementing the design-build project. The first tool is for the project director to create a small – five to ten member core management team to participate from development of the procurement documents, section of the design-build contractor through oversight of the performance of the work on the project. The MoDOT management team should represent a variety of engineering and other disciplines that are
-important to the project. They should be located together if possible and should meet at least weekly to discuss first the requirements in the procurement documents. They should lead preparation of the contract documents, i.e., the Requests for Qualifications and Proposals and should lead the industry review and negotiations with the short-listed proposers.
-After the contractor has been selected, the project management team should meet on a weekly basis and discuss the progress of partnering with the contractor. Ideally, MoDOT and the contractor will be co-located and will have scheduled meetings on a weekly basis. These meetings should be management team meetings (consisting of management of the MoDOT and the contractor’s teams) where the “big picture” management issues are discussed and resolved. It is also useful to have periodic task force meetings where the discipline managers of MoDOT and the contractor discuss the progress being made on the project in particular disciplines, and where potential issues of disagreement may be raised.
-The potential issues or conflicts that MoDOT discipline managers discover during meetings with the contractor task forces should be discussed during MoDOT’s internal management meetings. The management team can then decide the appropriate response
+==139.10.4 Procurement Schedule==
-to the contractor or can decide if further research of the contract documents is necessary to formulate an appropriate response. It is usually advantageous for the management teams of MoDOT and the contractor to resolve the potentially disputed issues.
+The design-build procurement process typically takes about 6-8 months, but it can be shorter or longer depending on the size and complexity of the project.  If a team opts to do an Industry Review, the process will take about 3-4 months longer.  A typical procurement schedule is below:
-An important point for MoDOT management to recognize is that the partnering charter and process that has been agreed to between MoDOT and the contractor is essential to a successful project. However, the contractor must comply with the terms of the contract documents. A common mistake that has been made by many DOTs in managing design-build projects is to fail to distinguish between contract compliance and being a “good partner.” While on all projects there are times that it is appropriate to be flexible with a resolution to a specific problem, MoDOT management on design-build projects should
+:*	Advertise for Letters of Interest (30 Days)
-not confuse the “partnering” concept with the contractor’s requirement to comply with the terms of the contract documents.
+:*	Issue RFQ/Hold industry meeting
+:*	SOQs due (2 weeks)
+:*	Shortlist teams (2 weeks)
+:*	Issue RFP (Immediately after shortlist)
+:*	Technical discussions (2-3 months)
+:*	Proposals due
+:*	Best Value Recommendation and award (4 weeks from proposal submittal)
+:*	Final negotiations, stipend payouts (4-6 weeks)
+:*	Execute contract/NTP 1
+:*	NTP 2 (approximately 3 months after NTP 1)
-Finally, each design-build project and each design-build contractor will be different and will have its own personality. MoDOT project management teams should be flexible in implementing each design-build project. However, experience has shown that the more defined the internal MoDOT processes are for items such as change orders, potential disputes, and responses to the contractor on specific issues, the smoother the project will proceed.
+When developing a detailed procurement schedule, teams should look at the time it will take to develop the contract documents.  Teams should include document review times in the detailed schedule to ensure enough time is allowed for the required reviews.  A best practice is to talk with FHWA and [http://wwwi/design/EnvironmentalStudies.htm Design's Environmental Studies section] when developing the project schedule, so they can anticipate required resources.  See the [[media:139 FHWA Design Build Program Agreement.pdf|FHWA/MoDOT Design-Build Program Agreement]] for topic specific review times.

Category:139 Design - Build: Difference between revisions