White Paper Session

Design-Build Best Practices for
Environmental, MOT, Utilities, ATC’s
and Right of Way
April 19, 2016
Charlotte, NC

Transportation Committee
First Name Last Name Company
James Avitabile RS&H
John Bale JWBale, Inc.
Lanford Pritchett
J. L. Patterson & Associates,
Inc.
Hilda Lefebre JPB/SamTrans
Jeff Gagne HNTB
Shailendra Patel VDOT
Jeff Lewis
Federal Highway
Administration
Scott Drobney Kiewit
Ray Moran Parsons Brinckerhoff
Hamid Tabassian
Jacksonville Transportation
Authority
Rex Huffman Huffman Consulting, LLC
Phil Sheridan Clark Civil, LLC
Lismary Gavillán
Federal Highway
Administration
First Name Last Name Company
Shannon Sweitzer S&ME, Inc.
Baabak Ashuri Georgia Tech
Evan Caplicki Nossaman LLP
Benjamin Dzioba Braun Intertec
Chandu Bhoraniya T.Y. Lin International
Gene Niemasz Parsons Transportation Group
Chuck Tomasco
C3M Power Systems
(subsidiary of Clark
Construction)
Jeffery Folden
Maryland State Highway
Administration
Virginia McAllister Iron Horse Architects
Paul Huston HNTB
Peter Davich
Minnesota Department of
Transportation
Steven Roberts RK & K
Phil Schwab RS&H

Mission
The charge of the Transportation Markets Committee is to identify key
obstacles to design-build in the transportation sector, and develop short-
and long-term strategies to overcome them. To this end, the committee will:
• Recommend methods and strategies to expand opportunities for owner education.
• Collaborate with industry organizations on key issues to collectively facilitate positive change.
• Assess and continually update best practices specific to the Transportation sector.
• Recommend needed tools/resources to assist owners in executing design-build more
effectively.
• Provide input on the content development phase of the Transportation Conference.
• Broaden DBIA’s view of the transportation markets to include all transportation sub-markets,
public and private, and at all levels; national, county, and municipality.
• Collaborate with the P3 committee as it pertains to the Transportation sector.

Sub-Committees
• Owners Outreach Subcommittee
– Chair: Shannon Sweitzer PE, DBIA
• Education Subcommittee
– Chair: John Bale, PE, DBIA, MBA
• Legislative Subcommittee
– DBIA Staff: Richard Thomas
• Industry Outreach Subcommittee
– Vacant

Major Accomplishments
• Developed transportation specific courses
• Published transportation Best Practices document
• Transportation Best Practices white papers
• Transportation owners survey published, additional research
and expansion on-going
• Collaborated on workshops with industry stakeholders
• Assisted owners with design-build manuals
• Commented on federal rulemaking
• Effective state, local and federal advocacy

Join the Committee
• To be considered for a Committee, you must be an active member in
good standing.
• Tenure on Committees is for a three-year term (2016 – 2018),
reviewed annually for eligibility based on evaluation of the following:
o Committee member’s ability to maintain a positive and supportive
attitude as it relates to the committee’s work, the organization, and the
DBIA staff.
o Level of participation and positive contributions to the successful work of
the Committee.
• Interested persons can complete an application and send it to
membership@dbia.org

Design-Build Best Practices
Additional Guidance
Presented by
John W. Bale, P.E., DBIA - Introduction
Phil Sheridan, P.E. DBIA - ATC’s
Baabak Ashuri, P.E. DBIA-Environmental
Ray Moran, P.E. DBIA - MOT
Shannon Sweitzer, P.E. DBIA - ROW
Hamid Tabassian, P.E. DBIA - Utilities

History - 2014 DBIA Presents at
National Conference
• 2014 DBIA Presents at National
Conference, Universally Applicable Best
Practices
• 2015 DBIA drafts Transportation Specific
Best Practices
• 2015 Transportation Conference –
Workshop
• Current - 2016 Transportation Conference
– Additional guidance (Implementing
Techniques) for Transportation Sector
specific Best Practices

History - 2014 DBIA Presents at
National Conference
Design-Build Done Right Universally
Applicable Best Design-Build
Practices

History – Universal Best
Practices
• Procuring Design-Build Services
• Contracting for Design-Build Services
• Executing the Delivery of Design-
Build Services
• Best Practice
• Implementing Technique

History - 2015 Transportation
Specific Best Practices
Design-Build Done Right
Transportation Sector Best Design-
Build Practices

History -2015 Transportation
Specific Best Practices
• Initially Focused on 5 Subject
Areas Specific to Transportation
• Alternative Technical Concepts
• Environmental
• Maintenance of Traffic
• Right-of-Way
• Utilities

History – Transportation Best Practices
Expanded format of universal Best Practices
• Procuring Design-Build Services
• Contracting for Design-Build Services
• Executing the Delivery of Design-
Build Services
• Best Practice
• Implementing Technique

History -2015 Transportation
Conference Work Shop
Requested additional thoughts from
industry for the 5 Subject Areas:
• Alternative Technical Concepts
• Environmental
• Maintenance of Traffic
• Right-of-Way
• Utilities

Current -2016 Transportation
Conference
• Transportation Best Practices
• Best Practice
• Implementing technique
White papers may result in:
• New proposed Best Practice
• New Implementing Technique of a Best
Practice
• Additional or deeper information of an
Implementing Technique

Use of ATC’s in Transportation
Design-Build Projects
Presented by
Philip Sheridan P.E., DBIA

Alternative Technical Concepts
Additional Guidance/Further Considerations
• Procurement: Implementing Technique 1.k
Owners should develop ATC guidelines that define the process in which ATC’s are
reviewed, evaluated and accepted. This is especially important for Owners with limited
staff resources. In addition, on significantly large and complex projects, these guidelines
can help steer the process productively towards the desired areas of innovation and
maximizes the opportunities for the owner to achieve positive results
• Clearly identify requirements for content and review
process used for ATC evaluation.
• The RFP documents should define the levels of
approval for ATC’s.

Conditional approvals are commonly used to expedite the timelines of the
procurement process. A conditional approval allows for two primary benefits:
• The design-build team is not required to continue to progress
an ATC design concept during the proposal for further detailed
evaluation.
• The Owner may still receive added value where the proposers
can evaluate the risk associated with the conditional ATC
versus the solution presented in the RFP Documents/Criteria
Package they are trying to modify and price that risk
accordingly, often at a lower overall cost to the Owner.

Owners with limited resources for reviewing ATC’s can use one of the following
techniques to minimize the overall efforts to evaluate ATC’s:
• One on One meetings to discuss ATC's in principle before
formally making submissions for full evaluation.
• Submitting a shortened version of the ATC evaluation package
"Conceptual ATC's" that provides the fundamental
components to generally evaluate the ATC (generally a brief
narrative scope description and one or two concept plans to
present key elements).

• Procurement: Implementing Technique 2.c
If prescriptive requirements are included, owners should take the design to the minimum level
required to obtain major approvals required for project development, and consider other
means that encourage design flexibility, such as allowing: (a) shortlisted proposers to propose
ATC’s; and (b) the design to deviate from the project configuration defined in the preliminary
design, within specified parameters
• Owners should consider and encourage a broad array
of ATC’s
– Not limit approval of ATC’s to just those that reduce costs.
– Be open to new concepts and processes utilized in other
states.

• Procurement: Implementing Technique 2.j
Proposers should be encouraged to submit ATC’s that do not compromise project quality or
intent, and that allow proposers to provide input to the owner regarding new ideas,
innovations or concepts that may not have been reflected in the RFP documents
• If an ATC submission is approved, the proposer may elect to
incorporate the approved ATC into their proposal or not. A
proposer should be required to clearly indicate within their
proposal submission which ATC's have been incorporated in
their technical and price submissions.
• Only ATC’s that are accepted or accepted with conditions
should be allowed to be included. The submitted ATC’s
should be included in the conformed contract at the time of
award.

• Procurement: Implementing Technique 3.e
Owners should protect the intellectual property of all proposers and should not disclose such
information during the proposal process
• The ATC evaluation and approval process must remain
proprietary and confidential to not only encourage, but
also to ensure proposers pursue the most effective
enhancements and cost solutions prior to submission.
An ATC evaluation process that is effectively managed
with true confidentiality on an equal playing field with
all proposers in combination with clearly articulated
evaluation criteria, there should be very little risk of the
ATC process being the basis for an award protest by an
unsuccessful proposer.

• Post Award : Implementing Technique 4.a
The owner and design-builder should acknowledge the significant level of effort required to
manage the development and review of the design and, consequently: (a) dedicate sufficient
resources to foster a collaborative environment for this work; and (b) mutually develop a
realistic design development plan that efficiently engages the owner and key members of the
design-builder’s team (e.g., designer(s)-of-record and key subcontractors) in purposeful
meetings
• All incorporated ATC’s should be tracked to ensure they
are captured in final design drawings.
• Incorporated ATC’s may require modification to the
schedule of values or payment system used on the
project.

• Post Award: Implementing Technique 4.a
• The Proposer should be bound to deliver the Project
including the stated ATC’s and not be entitled contract
modifications (without mutual agreement of the Parties) if
the Proposer determines after contract award they cannot
deliver the Project with the accepted ATC’s that were used
by Owner as the basis of award. In this case they must
deliver the original RFP scope at no increase in cost to the
owner (unless subsequent approvals needed for the ATC to
advance have been unreasonably withheld or otherwise
affected by a third party outside the control of the successful
proposer).

Environmental Analysis &
Permitting Best Practices in
Transportation Design-Build
Projects
Presented by
David Hannon, PE., CPESC

NEPA Analysis & Permitting in Design-Build
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning,
environmental permitting, and post-award
environmental management are often identified as the
critical path for delivery of transportation projects.
• NEPA analysis and permitting activities include the
following:
– Identification of environmental resources and coordination
with regulatory agencies
– NEPA Process (Quantification and Mitigation of
Environmental Impacts)
– Acquisition of environmental permits

Procurement: Implementing Technique 2.k or 3.a
2.K Owners should perform an adequate search to identify necessary environmental permits for the project in
order to avoid potential permit issues with the RFP conceptual design. If necessary, prior to issuance of the
RFP, a risk management strategy tied to the permitting process should be considered
3.A Owners should perform appropriate front-end tasks (e.g., geotechnical investigations, environmental
assessments, subsurface utility and other applicable surveys) to enable the owner to: (a) develop a realistic
understanding of the project’s scope and budget; and (b) furnish proposers with information that they can
reasonably rely upon in establishing their price and other commercial decisions
• A large obstacle to innovation is restrictive environmental processes or
prescriptive design requirements introduced by owners through the
permitting process.
• Allowing for a design that has room for flexibility and innovation is
preferred in the NEPA process.
– This is accomplished by focusing on clearing a project footprint for impacts
and not a specific design solution.

3.A Owners should perform appropriate front-end tasks (e.g., geotechnical investigations,
environmental assessments, subsurface utility and other applicable surveys) to enable the owner
to: (a) develop a realistic understanding of the project’s scope and budget; and (b) furnish
proposers with information that they can reasonably rely upon in establishing their price and
other commercial decisions
• Depending on project risks and potential for innovation, the environmental
permits should be obtained by the party who can best manage the risks.
• Owners may employ three strategies to obtain environmental permits:
– Acquire permits in advance of advertising the RFP
• Best used for high-risk/critical or non-construction related permits
– Transfer of the responsibility the design-builder for any
amendment/change

2.K Owners should perform an adequate search to identify necessary environmental permits for the project in order to avoid
potential permit issues with the RFP conceptual design. If necessary, prior to issuance of the RFP, a risk management strategy
tied to the permitting process should be considered
3.A Owners should perform appropriate front-end tasks (e.g., geotechnical investigations, environmental assessments,
subsurface utility and other applicable surveys) to enable the owner to: (a) develop a realistic understanding of the project’s
scope and budget; and (b) furnish proposers with information that they can reasonably rely upon in establishing their price
and other commercial decisions
– Acquire permits after procurement
• Coordinate the impacts and permit requirements based on the design-
builder’s proposed design
– Reduce or eliminate the schedule benefit of obtaining the permit in
advance
– Provide the design-builder with the additional flexibility in finalizing
the design
– Require the design-builder to prepare permits
• Best used for permits that extensively depend on design-builder’s design

Contract: Implementing Technique 2.c
2.C The contract should clearly specify the owner’s role during project execution, particularly relative to: (a)
the process for the design-builder reporting to and communicating/meeting with the owner; (b) the owner’s
role in acting upon design and other required submittals; and (c) the owner’s role, if any, in Quality
Assurance/Quality Control. Additionally, the contract should clearly specify the respective responsibilities of
the owner and design-builder in the areas of design, permitting, ROW, environmental mitigation measures,
improvements that will be owned by third parties, and utility relocations
2.L The contract should clearly establish which party has responsibility for risks associated with: (a)
governmental approvals, including permits required for project development; (b) any changes to the existing
NEPA documents, including any NEPA re- evaluation; and (c) changes in law and changes in standards.
• It is critical to clearly define the permits or portions of permits the design-builder will be
responsible to acquire.
– Risk allocations and responsibilities related to delays associated with different
environmental permits should be properly addressed.
• Many permits require design input.
– The contract should identify any specifics regarding the level of design required to
secure a permit.

Post Award: Implementing Technique 1.e
Design-builders should be familiar with the entire NEPA process and its
requirements, as this can be a critical factor if the design-builder proposes
changes to approved concepts that deviate from the approved NEPA documents.
• Design-builders familiar with the NEPA process can help
prevent designs from triggering a NEPA re-evaluation.
• Require the design-builders to perform the re-evaluation.
– Can expedite the development of the re-evaluation and promote
better management of the project design and compliance with the
NEPA document.

Post Award: Implementing Technique 3.c
The owner and design-builder should develop processes that enable key
stakeholders (e.g., government agencies, utility and property owners, and third-
party operators) to interface directly with the design-builder and its design
professionals on significant elements of the work. Among the processes that
might be considered are the use of special task forces to address issues related
to ROW acquisition, utility relocation and environmental permitting that will
engage key stakeholders into the process.
• Permit modifications are needed to update permits to match the
final design impacts.
– Transferring the responsibility for updating permits to the design-builder is
more desirable for all parties
• Owner’s should work with regulatory agencies to establish which
permits should be obtained in advance and which should be
acquired after award of a design-build contract.
– Allows Owner’s to evaluate the benefits of early permit acquisition with
the risk of permit modification

Post Award: Implementing Technique 3.h
Design-builders should gain an understanding of the owner’s goals and should
be aware that compliance with environmental mitigation requirements and
other legal requirements (e.g. affirmative action, DBE) are often of critical
importance to the owner even though they may not affect the ultimate work
product.
• Owners, regulatory agencies, and design-builders can enhance
environmental analysis and permitting.
– Owners should empower the design-builder to assume the role defined in
the contract.
• Owners should work to enforce environmental compliance and
incentivize design-builders to work to minimize environmental
impacts.

Maintenance Of Traffic in
Projects
Presented by
Ray Moran, P.E., DBIA

Maintenance of Traffic
• Identified as a Best Practice in the Draft
Document for Industry Input
• Little Detail Provided
• Industry input
• Procurement Identified as a Critical Period

Procurement: Implementing Technique 2.c
Owners should develop their design-build procurement with the goal of minimizing the
use of prescriptive requirements and maximizing the use of performance-based
requirements, which will allow the design-build team to meet or exceed the owner’s
needs through innovation and creativity. If prescriptive requirements are included,
owners should take the design to the minimum level required to obtain major
approvals required for project development, and consider other means that encourage
design flexibility, such as allowing: (a) shortlisted proposers to propose ATC’s; and (b)
the design to deviate from the project configuration defined in the preliminary design,
within specified parameters
• The criteria documents (RFP documents) should provide clear
criteria with an emphasis on flexible criteria whenever possible.
Criteria can focus on level of service (LOS) requirements and travel
times through the corridor versus dictating the number of lanes to
remain operational at different times

• ATC’s should be allowed if proposer can demonstrate
performance requirements are met.
• Criteria Documents (RFP) should clearly indicate responsibilities
of the owner and design-builder regarding adjacent roads,
residents, businesses, sidewalks, bike paths, share use paths and
the like.
• Criteria Documents (RFP) should identify all impacted agencies,
stakeholders, and adjacent project which may require
coordination for lane closures and traffic shifts.
• Flexibility in MOT specifically if there are schedule incentives.

• Restrictions regarding allowed lane closure times, rental costs
should be stated clearly in the criteria documents (RFP).
• MOT is a driving force in determining technical solutions,
construction cost and project duration.
• If the criteria Documents (RFP) do not make the requirements
clear – the design-builder teams should submit questions
• If the work zone is such that the MOT requirements must be
prescriptive, then enough detail needs to be provided to the
design-build proposers and provide an explanation as to why ATC’s
may not be allowed.

Contract: Implementing Technique 2.k
The contract should clearly identify the scope of the design-builder’s responsibilities for
maintenance of traffic (e.g., flagging) and traffic management constraints affecting the
construction schedule (e.g., lane closure restrictions, lane rental, maintenance of access,
special events)
• MOT development and application is a responsibility typically
assigned to the design-build team within limits defined by the owner
in the RFP documents
• Responsibility for providing tow truck services, breakdown or accident
clearing in the work zones occupied by the DB should be clearly
established.
• Responsibility of snow removal and road repair requirements should
be clearly defined in the criteria Documents (RFP). The need for
temporary snow storage, if any, should also be defined.

Right-Of-Way Acquisition in
Projects
Presented by
Shannon Sweitzer, P.E., DBIA

Right-of-Way Acquisition
Procurement: Implementing Technique 2.g
Owners should take appropriate steps to reduce right-of-way acquisition (ROW) risk for the project. The
owner should: (a) clearly define the existing ROW boundaries; (b) provide expected dates for owner ROW
acquisitions affecting the construction schedule (if the owner will be responsible for the acquisitions); and (c)
provide other information enabling the proposers to understand how the ROW acquisition process
interrelates with the construction schedule. Owners should be closely involved when ROW acquisition is the
responsibility of the design-builder, or when the ROW needed for the project may vary based on the final
project design. The owner should clearly specify the scope of the design-builder’s responsibilities and identify
the procedures that the design-builder must follow with respect to acquisitions. The owner should retain
responsibility for paying ROW acquisition costs and costs of relocations so as to reduce contingency that will
otherwise be included in the contract price
Owner involvement should include:
• Assuming financial risk of the property and relocation costs, unless these
financial risks can be quantified or an incentive cost structure
established.
• Knowing variables which affect ROW cost and schedule and the
associated risk profile
• Defining the Party responsible for ROW acquisition and relocation
services
• Acting as final oversight agency with eminent domain authority

Providing procurement documents that clearly define the existing ROW:
• Current mapping, tied to survey control, with accurate parcel and
property information
• Parcels previously acquired
• Parcels with known environmental contamination
• High risk parcel which could affect cost or schedule
• ROW restrictions, such as borrow material or wasting

Providing specific guidance regarding the ROW acquisition process,
schedule, guidelines and procedures:
• Specificity for each step in process
• Each Parties responsibility
• Documentation requirements
• Submittals/approvals/hold points
• Negotiation thresholds
• Flexibility is revising the project footprint along with associated
permitting, if required

When the design-builder is performing the ROW acquisition, owners
should remain involved throughout the acquisition process:
• Owner should assign a capable right of way manager to project who is
empowered to make final decisions
• Align design-builder goals with project goals
– Encourage ROW cost savings
– Encourage design changes to reduce ROW cost, while understanding
schedule implications
– Discourage eminent domain cases

Contract: Implementing Technique 2.c
The contract should clearly specify the owner’s role during project execution, particularly relative to: (a) the
process for the design-builder reporting to and communicating/meeting with the owner; (b) the owner’s role
in acting upon design and other required submittals; and (c) the owner’s role, if any, in Quality
Assurance/Quality Control. Additionally, the contract should clearly specify the respective responsibilities of
the owner and design-builder in the areas of design, permitting, ROW, environmental mitigation measures,
improvements that will be owned by third parties, and utility relocations
The contract should specify the owner’s responsibilities and the design-builder’s
responsibilities. This should include ROW and coordination aspects. Risk allocations and
responsibilities related to delays should be properly addressed
• Specificity for each step in process
• Each Party’s responsibility
• Documentation requirements
• Submittals/approvals/hold points
• Negotiation thresholds
• Flexibility is revising the project footprint along with associated permitting, if required
• Responsibility for cost and schedule impacts
• Incentives for reduction in ROW, number or parcel impacts, relocations and condemnation
claims

Post Award: Implementing Technique 3.e
The owner should be fully engaged and prepared to make the timely decisions
necessary to facilitate the design-builder’s performance, including being represented
by staff that has the authority to make decisions and perform its project functions
• When right-of-way acquisition is included as a responsibility of the design-build
team, owner guidance; continuous owner support and the inclusion of contract
incentives may lead to increased efficiencies and cost reduction
• Establish process to promote clear communication, transparency and information
sharing
• Implement the use of a tracking report or GIS application to keep parties abreast
of acquisition/relocation status
• Discuss at each project meeting until ROW is complete
• Establish protocol for timely review of ROW submittals, approvals, settlements,
and eminent domain packages

The owner and design-builder should develop processes that enable key stakeholders (e.g.,
government agencies, utility and property owners, and third-party operators) to interface directly
with the design-builder and its design professionals on significant elements of the work. Among the
processes that might be considered are the use of special task forces to address issues related to ROW
acquisition, utility relocation and environmental permitting that will engage key stakeholders into the
process
• Design-builders should consider special
task forces or interdisciplinary teams to
address issues related to ROW acquisition
and property owners into the process
• Early involvement of property owners
• Take advantage of the Public Meetings
• Pursue high risk parcels first
$Cost
Construction

• Provide three dimensional plans or visualizations detailing property impacts
• Provide quality appraisals
• Address utility easements during ROW acquisition
• Streamline asbestos abatement and environmental contamination remediation

Management of Utilities in
Transportation Design-Build Projects
Presented by
Hamid Tabassian, P.E., DBIA

Management of Utilities
Procurement: Implementing Technique 3.a
Owners should perform appropriate front-end tasks (e.g., geotechnical investigations,
environmental assessments, subsurface utility and other applicable surveys) to enable
the owner to: (a) develop a realistic understanding of the project’s scope and budget;
and (b) furnish proposers with information that they can reasonably rely upon in
establishing their price and other commercial decisions
• Identify utility owners and obtain survey
• Compare owners record with survey info
• Perform GPR
• Perform vacuum excavation for selected utilities
• Investigate existence of any prior rights
• Develop Utility Relocation Agreement
• RFP to include a utility conflict matrix

Owners should identify and involve key project holders at the early
stages of project planning, as stakeholder goals, expectations,
challenges, constraints, and priorities should guide all project planning
and procurement activities, including the determination and
implementation of design excellence and sustainability goals
• Owners should participate in open meetings in advance of the procurement
to meet with stakeholders and provide advance notice of relocation
activities
• Provide scope, concept plans and schedule
• Obtain as-built info
• Discuss conflicts and strategies to avoid them

Procurement: Implementing Technique 2.h
Owners should be actively involved and take appropriate steps to reduce project risks
relating to utility relocation, including:
(a) developing risk mitigation strategies and evaluating how best to assign risks
associated with utility relocation; (b) including, where appropriate from a risk
mitigation perspective, an allowance in the contract for utility relocation cost instead of
requiring a lump sum; and, to the extent reasonably possible, (c) negotiating and
securing, before the RFP is released, agreements with utility owners and stakeholders
that establish the parameters for work to be performed by the design-builder. Utility
agreements should clearly define divisions of responsibilities and, when work is being
performed by the private utility, should include schedule commitments that can be
relied upon by the design-builder
• Owners are encouraged to develop risk mitigation strategies and evaluate how best
to assign risks associated with utilities relocation
• Develop a risk matrix and risk mitigation strategies
• Determine how best to assign risks and who most capable of managing them
• Encourage ATC’s to reduce risk or avoid relocations
• Reach an agreement for including utilities scope of work in the transportation
project RFP
• RFP to include the construction/relocation schedule for any self-performing work

Procurement: Implementing Technique 2.k
Owners should meet early with any impacted railroad management team to
discuss the project and define scope.
If a Railroad is impacted, owners should meet early with
Railroad management team to discuss the project and define
scope:
• Obtain owner specs, TSP’s and performance requirements
• RFP to clearly specify rules of engagement
• RFP to specify Parties responsibilities
• If allowed by RFP, utility owners should be contacted prior to
submittal of price proposals

Contract Implementing Techniques 2.c
The contract should clearly specify the owner’s role during project execution,
particularly relative to: (a) the process for the design-builder reporting to and
communicating/meeting with the owner; (b) the owner’s role in acting upon design
and other required submittals; and (c) the owner’s role, if any, in Quality
Assurance/Quality Control. Additionally, the contract should clearly specify the
respective responsibilities of the owner and design-builder in the areas of design,
permitting, ROW, environmental mitigation measures, improvements that will be
owned by third parties, and utility relocations
• In absent of any advance existing utility info, the contract language should clearly
specify the responsibility and timeline for submitting a preliminary utility status
report that includes a listing of all utilities, a conflict evaluation and cost
responsibility determination for each utility. In this case, “utility relocation
allowance budget” is highly recommended.

The owner and design-builder should develop processes that enable key stakeholders
(e.g., government agencies, utility and property owners, and third-party operators) to
interface directly with the design-builder and its design professionals on significant
elements of the work. Among the processes that might be considered are the use of
special task forces to address issues related to ROW acquisition, utility relocation and
environmental permitting that will engage key stakeholders into the process
• Owners should schedule a meeting early in the post-award phase to introduce the
design-builder to the third parties to develop communications, responsibilities and
schedules regimes
• In coordination with owner, conduct utility review meetings to assess and explain
the impact of the project construction
• Establish a protocol for open communication, decision making and partnering
• Provide complete design plans punctually
• Make all reasonable efforts to avoid conflicts, and to avoid the need for additional
TCE’s and/or ROW

Questions??
Any comments or questions please email DBIA –
Richard Thomas rthomas@dbia.org

White Paper Session

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to White Paper Session

Similar to White Paper Session (20)

White Paper Session

Editor's Notes