Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Case-Study-In-Complex-Project-Managem 👈

1. A Case Study in Complex Project Management: T-REX
Lopez del Puerto, C., Shane, J. and Gransberg, D.
ISEC-7, Honolulu, June 18-23, 2013
1
A CASE STUDY IN COMPLEX PROJECT
MANAGEMENT: T-REX
CARLA LOPEZ DEL PUERTO, PH.D.1
, JENNIFER SHANE, PH.D.2
, and DOUGLAS
GRANSBERG, PH.D.2
1
Department of Construction Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA
2
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University,
Ames, USA
This paper presents a case study of the T-REX design-build project in Colorado. The project
manager had to integrate the design and construction of this very complex multi-modal project.
This project was the first design-build project that combined major highway and transit
elements. If the project had been built using the traditional design-bid-build it would have taken
between 15 and 20 years to complete. By selecting design-build project delivery, the owner was
able to reduce the schedule to 7 years. The contractor completed the project two years ahead of
the design-build owner-developed schedule. The paper analyzes the major features of the
contract that were pertinent to project success and compares them with traditional design-bid-
build contracts. It finds that the cost and time savings was directly related to the early risk
management planning. It also concludes that the combination of partnering and highly
disciplined project management were key tools used to deal with the complexity of the funding,
the many stakeholders, and the traveling public.
Keywords: Project management, design-build, transportation case study, complex projects
Introduction
For rapid renewal transportation
projects, the schedule constraints create
logistic challenges that may only be
overcome by strong integration of
design and construction (FHWA 2006).
Statutory limitations, public
procurement regulations, and
contractually mandated compliance
requirements all require intense levels
of coordination, planning, and
communication from project leaders.
Increasingly, rapid renewal projects
involve innovative designs and
construction technologies that create the
need for engineering expertise across
project life cycles. The composition of
the labor force, scarcity of skilled labor
in some trades, and the growth in
transparency and stakeholder
involvement create managerial issues
that many project managers are often
poorly trained to deal with (CCPM
2006). In short, the integrated project
team in a rapid renewal environment
must be able to meet both the task
objectives associated with careful
planning and execution of scope, cost,
schedule, quality, and technical design

2. A Case Study in Complex Project Management: T-REX
Lopez del Puerto, C., Shane, J. and Gransberg, D.
ISEC-7, Honolulu, June 18-23, 2013
2
issues while at the same time carefully
managing the administrative and human
relation tasks of contract compliance,
stakeholder communication and
negotiation, team member motivation,
and labor recruitment and retention
(Jugdev and Muller 2005). The
technical and relational skills required
from project managers need to be active
from the very earliest stages of the
project through to construction
completion. Adding to the challenge is
the fact that complexity can evolve
from the interaction of many factors.
Rapid renewal projects cover a wide
spectrum of projects, varying in
engineering complexity, size, modality,
jurisdictional control, financing
approach, contract type, and delivery
method. Each project calls for a distinct
project management style with multi-
disciplinary teams to successfully
complete the project (Thomas and
Mengel 2008).
Successfully managing complex
projects require that all project
stakeholders work together
cooperatively as contributing partners
with the overarching goal of project
success, rather than in the self-
interested pursuit of individual
organizational goals (Leicester 2009;
Jugdev and Muller 2005). This requires
a fundamental change in how projects
are planned, developed, designed,
procured, and constructed. Standard
practices and traditional contract
language do not suffice in the new era
of complex renewal projects (Joham et
al. 2009). Changes in standard practices
and processes and the use of custom,
hybrid contracts lead to new roles and
responsibilities for many project
partners (Thomas and Mengel 2008).
The required role redefinition can span
from issues involving primary design
responsibility to issues regarding which
party is responsible for quality control
and assurance, who makes
maintenance-of-traffic decisions, or
which organization holds responsibility
for maintaining long-term performance
of the finished transportation
infrastructure segments. The typical
project management systems in many
transportation agencies lack integration
and are not designed to promote fast,
efficient decision-making (Whitty and
Maylor 2009). Goal conflict and lack of
shared commitment often present
significant barriers to cooperative
problem solving. Changing these
entrenched systems requires strong
project leadership, which must be
developed around a new set of best
management practices for successful
completion of complex transportation
projects (CCPM 2006).
The Case Study Project
The objective of this paper is to analyze
a very complex case study project and
identify those management practices
that led to project success. The case
study project is the Transportation
Expansion Project, familiarly called T-
REX built through the center of the
metropolitan Denver, Colorado area. It
consists of 17 miles of highway
expansion and improvements to
Interstate 25 from Logan Street in
Denver to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas
County and Interstate 225 from Parker
Road in Aurora to a newly configured
I25/I225 interchange as well as 19 miles
of light rail developments along these
routes. The project was projected to
cost $1.67 billion at its outset. It was
ultimately completed almost two years

3. N A Case Study in Complex Project Management: T-REX
Lopez del Puerto, C., Shane, J. and Gransberg, D.
ISEC-7, Honolulu, June 18-23, 2013
3
ahead of the owner-developed schedule.
This is even more impressive when one
considers that the project “owner” was
not a single public agency. The project
was completed via collaboration
between the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) and the
Regional Transportation District (RTD).
Additionally, there were a number of
federal, state, and local agencies that
participated in both the project
financing and the project’s permitting.
The project was divided into two main
phases: the planning and procurement
phase and the execution phase.
Project Planning and Procurement
Phase
The planning and procurement phase
started in 1998 when the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT)
and the Regional Transportation District
(RTD) signed an Intergovernmental
agreement to design and build a
corridor together between the Denver
Central Business District and the
Southeast Business District. They
announced their Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and started a public
involvement program to allow the
public to provide input about the
project. The design-build project
delivery was selected due to its ability
to reduce schedule and assign a single
point of responsibility. The EIS was
completed in 18 months. The speedy
process was attributed to having a
multi-modal project (highway capacity
improvement and transit). Both the
transit and anti-transit people had in
interest in the project (Larry Warner
2010). A two phase selection process
was used: in the first phase, a request
for qualifications (RFQ) was issued and
three bidders were qualified based on
financial ability. In the second phase, a
request for proposals (RFP) was issued.
In June, 2001 Southeast Corridor
Constructors (SCC), a joint venture
between Kiewit Construction Company
and Parsons Transportation Group, was
awarded the project and given notice to
proceed. SCC proposed a schedule that
was 22 months shorter than the original
schedule by CDOT (AASHTO 2010).
CDOT and RTD took some pro-active
steps to ensure that the project was
successful. They hired a consultant to
help with contract formation and risk
analyses. They also formed a Dispute
Resolution Board and formal partnering
that were incorporated into the contract.
T-REX was a public project financed
by FTA, FHWA, CDOT, RTD and
local agencies. Voters had to approve
House Bill 1325 (TRANS) to be able to
issue transportation revenue
anticipation notes.
Table 1. T-REX Funding Sources
(Colorado Department of
Transportation & Regional
Transportation District)
Source Amount
RTD $331.8 million
FTA $525.0 million
FHWA $397.5 million
CDOT $397.5 million
Local Agencies $22.5 million
Total $1.674 billion
The total project cost was $XXX.XXX.
The cost included 4% separate
contingencies for highway and transit.
One of the main aspects that made T-
REX complex was that every dollar had
to be tracked to determine whether it

4. A Case Study in Complex Project Management: T-REX
Lopez del Puerto, C., Shane, J. and Gransberg, D.
ISEC-7, Honolulu, June 18-23, 2013
4
was highway or transit. Cost splits
between highway and transit on items
like bridges were complicated due to
the need for documentation to justify
the split.
CDOT and RTD established early on
during the planning phase of the project
that the number one goal was to reduce
inconvenience to the public. It was
determined that in order for the project
to be a success in the public’s eyes,
completing the project on time and on
budget was not enough. Due to the lack
of alternative travel routes and the
duration of the project, keeping the
public content was essential. During the
planning phase of the project a
marketing consultant was hired to
develop an aggressive marketing
campaign. The original name of the
project “Southeast Corridor Project”
was changed to “T-REX”, to increase
name recognition. The project’s public
involvement program included four
rounds of open houses as well as the
opportunity to participate in the
environmental planning process
(Colorado nd).
Since T-REX was an expansion to an
old urban corridor, existing utilities
were one of the biggest risks in the
project. CDOT and RTD worked with
45 utility companies that were
responsible for over 800 separate
utilities to develop agreements prior to
the procurement phase. Utility
companies and qualified contactors
completed $2.5 million dollars of utility
relocation work prior to the contractor
received notice to proceed (Colorado
Department of Transportation &
Regional Transportation District).
Identifying existing utilities and
relocating them early on provided less
risk to the contractor. The widening of
the highway and construction of the
light rail transit required some right-of-
way purchases. Relocation experts
worked one-on-one with homeowners
and tenants. They explained
homeowner/ tenant rights and provided
help with financing and locating
replacement housing. Relocation
benefits included home buying
assistance, money to supplement rent
and moving costs. The T-REX project
required 30 total acquisitions and 172
partial acquisitions (Colorado nd).
Project Execution Phase
T-REX was awarded and SCC was
given notice to proceed before the
unfortunate event of 9/11. The T-REX
groundbreaking ceremony took place on
September 24, 2001. SCC completed
construction on September 1, 2006
(Colorado Department of
Transportation & Regional
Transportation District). 9/11 had a
positive impact on the project due to the
increase of labor availability and
reduced inflation during the project
execution phase. Because of the
owner’s resource constraints and ability
to supervise the contractor at all times
there was a great importance placed on
trusting the contractor. This is seen in
in assigning Quality assurance/ quality
control (QA/QC) responsibilities to the
contractor, but all of the owner’s staff
were trained to conduct quality audits.
There are even examples where the
quality of a specific portion of work
met CDOT’s criteria but the contractor
decided to redo it because they were not
happy with it. (Colorado nd).
During the construction phase, CDOT
and RTD focused on public outreach
and public emergency services. T-REX
was in the news daily with both the

5. N A Case Study in Complex Project Management: T-REX
Lopez del Puerto, C., Shane, J. and Gransberg, D.
ISEC-7, Honolulu, June 18-23, 2013
5
owner and contractor speaking to the
media as “one voice” (Warner 2010).
This extensive and sophisticated
outreach allowed the public to see
progress and avoided many of the
common public complaints since people
like seeing progress and how public
funds are being spent. The contractor
maintained a website that contained a
real time map showing traffic
conditions, closures, and actual travel
time. Hotel vouchers were given to
residents for excessive noise at night
construction. Due to the lack of
alternative travel routes and highway
night closures, CDOT created an
emergency services task-force. The task
force of emergency providers helped
develop the emergency procedures
manual. CDOT informed emergency
services of closures and detours.
Conclusions
T-REX was a very successful project
from many perspectives. The project
team’s greatest challenges were
constantly adapting to a challenging
work environment, due to need to keep
highway open during the construction.
The use of design-build project delivery
allowed SCC to design the project
around the constraints of maintaining
adequate throughput. The constructors’
input to the maintenance of traffic plans
was invaluable to the success of this
project feature. The project team also
faced difficulties with tracking the
funding during project planning and
execution. Maintaining the identity of
the funding source during the design
process added a layer of administrative
complexity that had never been done
before. Finally, the need to develop and
retain bipartisan political support
throughout the project had a large
impact on the way with was
administered. No political party wanted
to lose elections due to sour public
opinion generated by T-REX
congestion and subsequent negative
publicity.
Despite the extreme contractual/
political environment in which the
project was delivered, the project team
achieved many successes. The major
ones are as follows:
• Genuine partnering between owner
and design-builder: This allowed
an environment of trust to be
developed through the co-location
of staff, and permitted decisions to
be made at the lowest possible
level.
• Zero claims: Partnering fostered an
environment where issues could
be discussed and resolved out of
court.
• Constrained budget at the start
allowed scope to be consistent.
• Very disciplined project
management: The team agreed to
a set of ground rules up front and
then obeyed them throughout the
project.
• Public outreach: The design-builder
and owner spoke to the media as
“one voice,” which created the
impression of unified project
delivery.
• In-depth project planning phase:
Time, resources, and creative
energy investments made at the
early stages of planning paid
dividends in the ability to finish
early and on budget during the
project execution phase.
• Use of specialty consultants: The T-
REX team was brutally honest

6. A Case Study in Complex Project Management: T-REX
Lopez del Puerto, C., Shane, J. and Gransberg, D.
ISEC-7, Honolulu, June 18-23, 2013
6
with itself regarding those areas
where it needed added expertise.
Since this was the first design-
build project, a contract consultant
was retained to assist the team in
developing the project’s contract.
The team also recognized the need
“brand” the project and hired a
marketing consultant to facilitate
that effort.
• Early utility agreements: The
magnitude of the utility location/
relocation/ expansion effort was
large and as a result the team
tackled this thorny problem early
in the planning phase.
Given the above discussion, the
primary conclusion drawn from the case
study analysis is that T-REX was a
success because the project delivery
team committed to identifying and
resolving problems as early as possible.
This was evidence by the way utility
and right-of-way issues were
aggressively addressed at very early
stages in the project. The bullet list in
the previous paragraph can be viewed
as a set of tools available for use in
complex project management.
References
AASHTO Center for Project
Excellence, Transportation
Expansion (T-REX), [Online]
[Cited: July 5, 2010]
http://transportation-
finance.org/projects/t_rex.aspx
College of Complex Project Managers
and Defense Materiel Organization
(CCPM). Competency Standard for
Complex Project Managers,
Version 2.0. Australia, Dept. of
Defense. Canberra, Australia, 2006
Colorado Department of Transportation
& Regional Transportation District.
Transportation Expansion Project
(T-REX): Project Fact Book, n.d.
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Design-build
effectiveness study. FHWA,
Washington DC. 26-29, 2006
Inside T-Rex, bi-weekly communique,
[Online] [Cited: July 5, 2010]
http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/
523/documents/InsideTREXMay7.
pdf
Joham, C. Metcalfe M., Sastrowardoyo,
S. Project conceptualization using
pragmatic methods. International
Journal of Project Management;
(27), 787–794, November, 2009.
Jugdev, K., Muller, R. A. Retrospective
look at our evolving understanding
of project success, Project
Management Journal; 36(4) pp. 19–
31, December, 2005
Kiewit, I-25 T-REX Project [Online]
[Cited: July 5, 2010]
http://www.kiewit.com/projects/tra
nsportation/i25-t-rex-project.aspx
Leicester, A. Successfully delivering
major projects through effective
stakeholder management,; Sydney,
NSW, Australia: Proceedings of
Complex Project Conference, 2009.
Thomas, J, Mengel, T., Preparing
project managers to deal with
complexity – Advanced project
management education.
International Journal of Project
Management, (26) 304–315, 2008.
Warner, L. project director for T-REX.
[interview] Carla Lopez del Puerto.
June 22, 2010
Whitty, S.J. Maylor, H., And then came
complex project management.
International Journal of Project
Management; (27) 304–310, 2009.