James H. Mattox, III, P.E., DBIA

James H. Mattox, III, P.E., DBIA South Carolina Certified Public Manager Class of 2019 0 1.0 Problem Statement 1.1 Design‐Build Project Delivery Design‐Build is one of the fastest growing project delivery methods in the United States. According to research conducted by the Design‐Build Institute of America (DBIA), design‐build spending in transportation projects is anticipated to grow 28% from 2017 to 2021 [1]. Its rising popularity is driven by cost and time savings as well as increased quality gained through design and construction innovations resulting from collaboration between the owner, lead contractor, and lead designer. The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) has used the design‐build project delivery method since 1998. Between 1998 and 2010, SCDOT utilized design‐build sporadically with inconsistent results. In 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) implemented an initiative knows as “Every Day Counts” to encourage improvements in timing of overall processes including project delivery. Design‐Build was identified as an innovation under this program and FHWA provided tools and resources for states to rapidly deploy this initiative [2]. SCDOT embraced this concept and incorporated a renewed vision for design‐build into its Strategic Plan [3]. SCDOT’s design‐build program has grown significantly since the refocused efforts nearly a decade ago. For the SCDOT 2018 budget year, approximately 18% of the $1.6 billion capital construction budget was delivered via design‐build. Looking ahead over the next 10 years, with the influx of funding due to the increased motor fuel tax in South Carolina [4], SCDOT has estimated that well over $3 billion of infrastructure improvement projects will be delivered utilizing design‐build. In 1 addition, with several “major projects” in development ($500M+), SCDOT has and will continue to add additional dedicated design‐build staff. 1.2 Alternative Technical Concepts in Design‐Build In order to provide innovative solutions that reduce risk and cost, accelerate schedules, provide flexibility, and enhance value, owners often implement a process known as Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC) in a design‐build procurement. An ATC is a confidential request by a proposer to modify a contract requirement in the Request for Proposals (RFP), specifically for that proposer, prior to submittal of the proposal. In order to be approved for inclusion into a proposer’s technical proposal, an ATC must be deemed by the owner to provide a project that is equal or better in quality or effect to the requirements set forth in the RFP. The SCDOT has utilized the ATC contracting tool since 2013 and since that time has received over 800 ATCs. As a result of the growth of the design‐build program, SCDOT expects that the number of ATCs received yearly will increase and anticipates over 180 ATCs per year will be submitted for the next 10 years. 1.3 Problem Statement In preparation for increased growth, SCDOT desires to maximize the benefits gained from the ATC process not only on a specific transportation project, but also in shaping policy. In order to accomplish this, it is critical for SCDOT to store historical ATC data in a way that allows it to be utilized in future decision making. ATCs are currently stored electronically in the project files for which they were submitted. Referencing previously submitted ATCs to aid in the review of current ATCs or 2 establish trends is extremely cumbersome due to the existing filing procedures; therefore, this historical data is often ignored. 1.4 Project Goals This project will focus on collecting and organizing ATC data on SCDOT Design‐Build projects from 2012‐2018 and establishing a management system to store and analyze this data as well as all ATC data received on future projects. This need was established in SCDOT Director of Preconstruction John Boylston’s 2014 Certified Public Manger Capstone project report entitled “Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects” [3]. Creating a management system for ATCs will help the SCDOT Design‐Build Group (DBG) increase its efficiency and provide for timely delivery of projects. In addition, this project will contribute to SCDOT’s overall performance goals identified in the 2018‐2020 Strategic Plan ‐ “Improve SCDOT program delivery to increase the efficiency and reliability of our road and bridge network [5].” The overall project goal of developing an ATC Management System for SCDOT can be further broken down into 3 sub goals. These sub goals are as follows: 1. Provide a single location or management system to store all past, present, and future ATC data. 2. Provide a variety of search, sort, and query options within the system to be able to retrieve historic ATC information quickly. 3. Provide a storage system that allows for analysis of ATC data to establish trends. 3 2.0 Data Collection 2.1 Data Collection Goals The goal of the data collection for this project was to determine state‐of‐practice in ATC management for other state Department of Transportations (DOTs). The online survey tool Qualtrics was used to conduct a nationwide survey of state DOTs to obtain feedback regarding ATC management. Qualtrics was chosen as a convenient method by which to collect data because the survey could be completed online by the respondents and responses stored in format that allowed for simple analysis. The survey was designed so that respondents could complete all questions in less than 5 minutes. Contacts from each state’s DOT were obtained from researchers at the University of Colorado (CU) who have done significant research in the field of design‐build. As a supplement to the contact list received from CU, at least one additional contact from each state was obtained from internet searches on state DOT websites and attendee lists from DBIA’s annual Design‐Build for Transportation Conference. Recipients were encouraged to forward the survey to other employees at their agency who were familiar with their ATC process, if they were not the appropriate person to respond. Figure 1 shows the survey questions and answer choices that were emailed to each respondent through Qualtrics. 4 Figure 1: Survey Questions Questions one and three also had an optional discussion section to allow respondents to elaborate on their answers. Because the survey was given electronically, non‐pertinent questions were not shown to the respondent. If the respondent answered “My agency does not utilize ATCs,” in question one, they were not shown questions two, three, or four. If their response to question two was “No”, question three was not shown. If the response to question four was “yes”, the respondent was given the option to provide up to three contacts for a possible follow‐up. If the response to question four was “no”, the survey closed. State representatives that did not respond to the survey initially were sent multiple reminders by email through Qualtrics. If responses were not received after multiple email follow‐ups, the project team contacted the representatives by phone and encouraged participation in the survey. 5 Responses from representatives of all 50 states as well as District of Columbia were received. Some states were contacted through email or through phone calls to expand on their answers. Detailed results of the survey are contained in Appendix A. 3.0 Data Analysis 3.1 Summary of Data The survey results demonstrating how State DOT’s are managing ATC data is shown in Figure 2 below: ATC Management Types No ATCs Tracked During Procurement Management Database Other Figure 2: Survey Results by State 6 3.2 Key Findings From the survey responses and follow‐up meetings with specific states, the majority of states that have design‐build programs that allow ATCs do not utilize a management system for ATCs and no state had a management system in place that met all three goals established for this project. Most states have not seen a need to create a formal ATC management system due to a low amount of ATCs that they receive. Those who did track historical ATC data, stored the information in a spreadsheet, not a formal management system. None of the respondents indicated in the survey that analytics could be run directly from their ATC management system. However, in a follow‐up meeting with Minnesota DOT, they provided an Excel spreadsheet that contained graphs and charts that were generated from ATC data that had been manually tracked for over a decade. While both Nebraska and Utah indicated that they utilized an ATC management system in the survey, follow‐up emails revealed that Utah used a spreadsheet like Minnesota, and that Nebraska was only in the early stages of developing a system. 3.3 Determination of Solution to Achieve Project Goals The data that was gathered through the survey demonstrated that that there was no robust ATC management system in use by any state DOT that would meet all three of the project goals. The systems utilized by Georgia and Tennessee would meet the first two project objectives related to storage and search/sort/query, but would not allow for analysis. Similarly, Minnesota DOT’s use of an Excel spreadsheet would address the project objective related to analysis but would not meet the objectives related to storage and search/sort/query. Since no viable option was found externally, solutions were explored internally. 7 The project team determined that the file management system, ProjectWise, currently used by the SCDOT for storing project related files could also be used as a management system. One of the major advantages of utilizing ProjectWise is that documents do not need to be in the same subdirectory which would allow the DBG to continue to store ATCs in a directory associated with a specific project and not have duplicate files.

Load more