IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 22)

TRANSPORTATION//STATE OF THE SECTOR / TRANS REPORT Alternative Technical Solutions ONE OF THE primary benefits of using the designbuild approach to project delivery is the ability to incorporate innovation and creativity during the development phase of the project. There is also another significant opportunity to allow innovation during the procurement phase, through the use of alternative technical concepts (ATCs). ATCs are ideas developed by a proposer that deviate from the owner’s requirements but that result in an end product with equal or better performance and quality than the end product absent the deviation. This allows proposers to add value to their proposals by introducing different approaches to meeting project needs than those considered by the owner during development of the procurement documents. Providing added value through ATCs benefits the proposer by increasing the likelihood of its selection as design-builder for the project, while the owner gets the benefit of competitive pricing for the ATCs. ATCs can be any deviation from the project requirements, including unique design concepts, use of different materials or even alternate approaches to project management requirements, such as testing periods. Some examples of ATCs included in the recent I-80 Highway Project by the Nevada Department of Transportation are: • Design deviations allowing construction of an auxiliary lane in addition to the planned improvements to the travel lanes • Use of highly reflective materials to reduce the need for sign lighting • Alternate location of Intelligent Transportation Systems to provide advance information for traffic control and the travelling public • Use of concrete maturity meters to expedite testing periods resulting in shorter projects While defining ATCs as broadly as possible allows proposers maximum flexibility to incorporate innovation into their proposals, owners will often establish requirements for ATC eligibility. For example, in order to avoid project delays, an owner may prohibit ATCs requiring new environmental approvals. In other instances, instead of restricting the use of ATCs, an owner may require the proposer to bear the risk of implementing the ATC, including any resulting delays or cost increases. It is up to each proposer to determine which of its ATCs merit inclusion in its proposal. In doing so, the proposer must weigh the risk of delay or additional cost against the increased likelihood of winning the job. Since ATCs are the proposer’s work product, it is incumbent upon the owner to keep any information related to ATCs strictly confidential. For federally funded projects, 23 CFR 636.113 requires an owner to pay a stipend to unsuccessful proposers if the owner wants the right to use their ideas later—either through a directed change or a value engineering process. While both proposers and owners must evaluate the risks and rewards of incorporating these new concepts, ATCs provide an opportunity early in the process to introduce new and innovative ideas for the development of the project that might not otherwise be considered. By Geoff Petrov GEOFFREY S. PETROV IS AN ATTORNEY IN THE AUSTIN, TEXAS OFFICE OF NOSSAMAN LLP. PETROV HAS EXPERIENCE WORKING ON DESIGN-BUILD HIGHWAY PROJECTS IN TE X AS, LOUISIANA AND NE VADA, INCLUDING THE RECENTLY COMPLETED PROCUREMENTS FOR THE WEST MESQUITE INTERCHANGE AND I-80 PROJECTS FOR THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 22 summer//2011 the quarterly publication of the design-build institute of america

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue

IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue