BACKGROUND 

State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies across the United States increasingly use alternative project delivery methods (APDMs) to deliver transportation projects, rather than the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) approach. APDMs include design-build (DB), progressive design-build, construction manager/general contractor, and public-private partnerships. Several factors are driving this trend, including the need for project cost-certainty, expediting project delivery, identifying and mitigating risks earlier in the project lifecycle, and shifting risks to or sharing risks with the parties most capable of managing them. 

Previous studies have focused on comparing the cost and schedule performance of DBB and DB projects, rather than APDMs at-large, and these studies tended to rely on small sample sizes and opinion-based data. Research is needed to better understand how to control the cost and schedule of projects utilizing APDMs from project planning through design and construction. 

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to provide a guide for transportation agencies on strategies to identify and manage risks that have led to cost and schedule growth on projects delivered with APDMs. 

RESEARCH TASKS 

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective. 

PHASE I 

Task 1. Conduct a literature review. The literature review should focus on the cost and schedule performance of alternative project delivery projects at state DOTs and other transportation agencies, with consideration of project type, size, and complexity. The reasons for cost and schedule growth should be documented, and legislative and other related reports should be considered. 

Task 2. Develop a stakeholder outreach plan. The outreach should include state DOT and other transportation agencies that commonly use APDMs and can provide lessons learned on cost and schedule performance. Submit a technical memorandum containing the literature review and draft outreach plan. NCHRP approval is required before work on subsequent tasks begins. 

Task 3. Conduct stakeholder outreach. Identify stakeholders interested in participating in a second-round stakeholder outreach in Phase II.

Task 4. Prepare an annotated outline for the draft guide. At minimum, the guide should provide:

• A glossary of project delivery-related terms that aligns with previous Transportation Research Board publications 
• Data and other visualization aids (e.g., charts and tables) for past performance of alternate delivery projects
• Effect of each APDM on cost and schedule growth 
• Effect of project work type, size, complexity, and selection method (e.g., best value, low-bid, qualification-based) on cost and schedule growth
• Issues or risks that have led to unanticipated cost and schedule growth
• Lessons learned on cost and schedule growth drivers
• Case studies on agencies with APDM programs of varying sizes and complexities 
• Benefits of each APDM for reduction of project cost and/or time 
• Mitigation plans and/or strategies that have reduced risk, cost, or time 

Task 5. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 that documents Tasks 1 through 4 and includes potential participation from stakeholders in Phase II. The report shall provide an updated and refined work plan for Phase II. 

Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 1 by the NCHRP, the research team will be expected to meet with the project panel in person to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. 

PHASE II

Task 6. Develop a draft guide according to the approved Interim Report No. 1. The draft guide should be submitted at least 6 months before the subaward end date. NCHRP approval of the draft guide is required before work on subsequent tasks may begin.

Task 7. Conduct second-round stakeholder outreach. After NCHRP approval of the draft guide, conduct a workshop, focus groups, or similar outreach to obtain feedback from stakeholders and revise the draft guide and outreach materials. The stakeholder outreach should include at least 12 participants besides the project panel and research team.

Task 8. Prepare the final deliverables. The deliverables shall include (1) the guide, (2) a conduct of research report summarizing the entire research effort, (3) an implementation plan for state DOTs (see Special Note J), and (4) the second-round outreach materials with a slide summary introducing the guide. 

Note: Following receipt of the preliminary draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the revised final deliverables. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

A. Revisions to the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs are highlighted in yellow within that document. 

B. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. 

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Subawardees. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for subaward negotiations. 

D. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/7224. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest. 

E. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. 

F. Proposals are evaluated by the NCHRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; and, if relevant, (5) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a subaward. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before subaward negotiations continue. 

G. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the subaward and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a subaward with the National Academy of Sciences, subawardees accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Subawardees are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Subawardees. 

H. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Subawardees Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables. 

I. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB. TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a federally Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) or audited indirect rates shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs (de minimis rate). Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each lower-tier subaward. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower-tier subaward in excess of $50,000. 

J. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts. 

The research team will be expected to provide input to an implementation team consisting of panel members, AASHTO committee members, the NCHRP Implementation Coordinator, and others in order to meet the goals of NCHRP Active Implementation: Moving Research into Practice, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf.

K. If the subawardee is proposed to conduct less than 50% of the total effort (by time or budget), then section five of the proposal should include (1) a justification of why this approach is appropriate and (2) a description of how the subawardee will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their lower-tier subawardees throughout the project. 

L. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs. 

M. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.