Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2003-01-13 Item 4A - Discussion - Tri-Association Joint Legislative PackageOriginal Sponsor: Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: ITEM INFORMATION CAS Number: 03-001 I Original Agenda Date: 12/9/02 Agenda Item Title: Tri- Association Legislative Package Recommendations: Sponsor: Reach consensus on approving proposal Committee: N/A Administration: Same as sponsor Cost Impact (if known' Fund Source (if known) 1 Meeting Date 1 12/9/02 COW 1/6/03 Regular Meeting 1/13/03 Meeting Date 12/9/02 1/13/03 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date 1/13/03 Council Admin. x Initials Prepared by 1 Mayor's eview 1 Cour ril review 1 LL 1 The city and county associations have together written a legislative priorities package to use this legislative session. More information has been provided here.The Council can again discuss the proposal, and either support it, or choose not to support it. RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Action APPENDICES Attachments Memo from J. McFarland dated 12/5/02 AWC, WACO and WSAC Joint Legislative Proposal Memo from L. Lauterbach dated 1/9/03 Tri- Association proposal with staff comments included Attachment A from Jim Morrow on Design Build Contracts ITEM No. 4/ 7/ a To: City Council From: Lucy Lauterbach Date: January 9, 2003 Subject: Tri- Association Joint Legislative Proposal I have copied the Proposal and inserted comments on specific proposals you expressed concern about. !My comments are included in boxes such as this within the document.' Jim Morrow has included detailed information about design/build in a separate Attachment A following the document. In speaking with AWC staff, they asked that cities recognize that this is a very general outline of a legislative package, and that what will be taken to the Legislature are the general issues raised here, and not each specific proposal. For example, they wouldn't ask the Public Works Trust Fund to add in fire trucks if that fund was being completely used for public works projects. It is only because in past years much of the fund was not being used that the fire truck proposal was added. If you can live with the proposals as they are now stated, a consensus approval would be adequate. All cities and counties in the state are considering these policies now, and it's not likely every proposal will please every reviewer. The fact that the entire package was agreed upon not only by the county and city associations, but also on a statewide east and west basis, in an accomplishment in itself. It's a good start in lifting that Cascade curtain. Environmental: Flexibility in Meeting Unfunded Regulatory Mandates: Suspend mandates for environmental or land use planning updates if state funding is not provided (e.g. Shorelines, GMA). Local governments need flexibility in meeting unfunded regulatory mandates, such as the stormwater management requirements, which mandate practices with significant costs to local government. Local Government Operations: Efficient Purchasing: Eliminate red tape generated by outmoded purchasing and bid requirements. Increase competition and cut costs by publishing bid requirements on a central website. Market Interest Rates: Reduce interest rates paid by governments (and therefore taxpayers) for court awards. Currently, awards are set at 12 even when ordinary bank accounts are earning about 1%. Updating Building Codes: Adopt building codes used by other states to reduce costs for training, documentation and building. Because the Uniform Building Code (UBC) is no longer being updated, the Legislature will need to adopt a new family of building, mechanical, and plumbing codes. The choice is between the International Building Code (IBC) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) code. The IBC is very similar to the UBC version; the NFPA is a different format and quite different. Independent Audits: Reduce the cost of audits by allowing jurisdictions the flexibility to have audits competitively bid by private firms. Binding Interest Arbitration: Mandate that arbitrators use the implicit price deflator for cost of living adjustments. Amend the binding interest arbitration statutes to require arbitrators to consider a jurisdiction's ability to pay. Eliminate comparables outside the state for all interest arbitration. Capital Projects Inter -local Cooperation on Construction and Maintenance: Allow local jurisdictions to bid on each other's projects in order to increase competition and make better use of specialized equipment and staff. Public Works Projects: Speed up public works projects by eliminating months of delay caused by the redundant approval process for Public Works Trust Fund projects. Alternative Construction Bid Methods: Authorize or expand alternative construction bid methods, such as design/build or general contractor construction management (GCCM). ISee Attachment A from Jim Morrow following this Tri Association proposal.' Cut the Cost of Jail Construction: Allow jail projects to qualify for low interest financing through the Public Works Trust Fund. Law and Justice Local Courts: Reduce court costs by allowing jurisdictions to downsize and/or consolidate courts to recognize changes in local government boundaries, caseload reductions, and/or to permit economies of scale. This proposal probably would not affect Tukwila. It would benefit some smaller, more rural courts, especially in Eastern Washington, but also possibly in East King County. Publicly Funded Criminal Defense: Improve standards and process for determining when criminal defendants are entitled to free legal defense. The process now is for people to fill out a confidential form that includes their income. The income levels for free legal defense are the same federal guidelines we use for low income. There is no way to determine if people are telling the truth on the form. As Darlene Heskett said, there's no way to tell how much a prostitute or drug dealer makes, as they don't leave a paper trail. Tort Costs Limitation: Set reasonable limits on tort liability related to the criminal justice system. Government is often seen as having "deep pockets" that make them an attractive target for tort cases with large settlements. A move to set reasonable levels for liability seems a common sense reform. Downsizing and Multi jurisdictional Consolidation: Permit local governments to offer early retirement incentives for LEOFF personnel for downsizing or multi jurisdictional consolidation. Third Degree Driving While License Suspended: Decriminalize Third Degree DWLS to unclog criminal courts, warrant systems and jails of thousands of cases for this offense. Darlene Heskett gave a rough estimate of Tukwila court seeing 30 cases a week of Driving While License is Suspended (DWLS). She would be happy if it were decriminalized if the financial penalty for the crime were kept the same or raised. ELIMINATE STATE COST SHIFTS WITHOUT REVENUE Election Costs: Require the state to pay its share of even -year election costs. In 2002, Tukwila spent $6,000 on election costs and $12,000 on voter registration.) · Jail Medical Costs: The state's failure to fund this expense has cost local taxpayers millions. Require the state to fund the medical costs in jails. · Tax Exemption Review: Require a periodic review of current tax exemptions to determine if they are still in the public interest. Equalize Impacts of Sentence Reductions: If the state reduces sentences for crimes, reduce the corresponding sentences that impact jails operated by local governments. Share the cost savings between state and local govermnents by adjusting the one year cutoff for felony prisoners sent to state prisons versus county jails, potentially reducing the cost' of incarceration for both state and local governments. This affects County jails. The first sentence addresses reviewing penalties for crimes, and wants the State to look not only at sentences for felons in State prisons, but also crimes that affect those in County or City jails. The second sentence applies to felons, wl~o often spend their first year in a County jail before going to a State prison to spend the next three or five years. When the penalty for a crime is reduced, the County wants part of their year o f housing the felon to be cut, and not only the State prison time. i Attachment A! MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mullet and City Council FROM: Public Works Directort[~ DATE: January 7, 2003 RE: Design Build Contracts I wanted to follow up the discussion last night with some further information on design build contracts. I have attached a couple of information papers that defines a design build contract and goes on to outline the advantages and disadvantages. There are definite advantages to the concept: · City would only work with a single point of contact; · Hopefully the project would be completed in less time; · Reduction in claims; · Warranty of performance improves. Them can be some very distinct disadvantages or difficulties: · Defining project scope and cost can be' very difficult; · Relationship and loyalties among the parties - the designer usually represents the owner during construction, not any more; · Designer's standard of care - ordinarily a designer is held responsible for exercising the degree of skill or care that the average engineer would employ and does not guarantee a successful outcome for his services; However a contractor does warrant that the result of their services will be a succeSsful project, provided that the design was appropriate. · No clear methodology for handling change orders - are they allowed or not? · Insurance/Bonding Problems One difficulty that we face is trying to do something new. We are trying to use a "competitively bid, firm-fixed priced" contract mechanism for some of our transportation projects, but WSDOT is wedded to using "unit-priced" contracts. There is a big inertia associated with innovation - See second attachment. Hope this helps. Design Build Construction: Advantages and Drawbacks Page 1 of 4 Design Build Construction: Advantages and Drawbacks Mark C. Friedlander and Kenneth M. Roberts An important part of the decision to construct a new facility is determining how to have it designed and built. Traditionally in the United States, an owner would hire an engineer to design the facility and then circulate the completed plans to several contractors for competitive bidding. Although there are many variations on this theme, there is a different and better method which is rapidly growing in popularity: design build construction, in which the same entity both designs and constructs the facility. The design build team may be structured in many different ways. The design builder may be a single firm with both design and construction capacity in-house, or it may be a combination of two or more firms with complementary abilities. If there are multiple firms, they rn. ay be structured as a joint venture or with one of the firms prime and the other(s) as subcontractor. The critical aspect is that the owner contracts with one. entity which has the responsibility for both designing and constructing the facility. Design build is the fastest growing method of project delivery in the United States and is even more popular abroad. According to statistics compiled by the Design-Build Institute of America and F.W. Dodge DATALINE2, from April 1995 to April 1996 the number of design build contracts increased 103% over the previous year. Of a total $212 billion construction market, approximately $37.2 billion (roughly 18%) was design build. The strongest growth was in the category defined as "Industrial: plants, refineries, factories and warehouses," in which design build was up more than 300% from the previous year. The growth of design build has been fueled by owners who perceive significant advantages resulting from design build compared to more traditional project delivery methods. These advantages include: Shortened project delivery, time, Owners perceive the shorter duration of design build projects as being the most important advantage design build has to offer. When the same entity is both designing and constructing the facility, procurement and initial construction can commence long prior to completion of the design. The last months of the design phase overlap the first months of the procurement/construction phase, resulting in time savings compared to the traditional end-to-end sequence. This both reduces construction cost and hastens the flow of revenue. In a traditional project structure, in which the designer and contractor are different entities, it is also possible to begin procurement and construction prior to completion of the design. This is called fast tracking. However, fast tracking has largely fallen into disrepute because of the potential for claims and change order abuses. Contractors often claimed that aspects of the design were completed in an unanticipated manner, resulting in sizeable extras. Single t~oint responsibility.. Nearly as important to owners is the broad scope of the design builder's resp~on~ibility for the project. In traditional construction, problems with the project often result in finger- pointing, with the designer blaming the contractor and vice versa for problems in the plant's operation. Often warranties would not be honored and protracted litigation was necessary to obtain remedies because the designer and the contractor blamed each other for the problems. In design build projects, the design builder has full responsibility for the outcome of the project, except for matters for which the owner is responsible. If a plant fails to develop the guaranteed number of Design Build Construction: Advantages and Drawbacks Page 2 of 4 kilowatt hours, the design builder is generally responsible, even if the parties do not know the reason for the failure. The designer and constructor are the same entity, so blaming each other does not excuse the design builder. Whereas in a traditional prOject, an engineer ordinarily does not guarantee the outcome of his work, in a design build project the engineer's work is subject to and subsumed within the design builder's warranty. Minimized claims and changes. One of the laudable consequences of single point responsibility is the minimization of claims for extras in design build projects. In traditional construction projects, a contractor is ordinarily entitled to additional compensation arising out of errors, omissions or ambiguities in the plans and specifications. However, in design build projects, the designer and contractor are the same entity, and the design builder cannot request extra compensation on account of its own design mistakes or assumptions. There may still be change orders on a design build project. If the owner changes its scope or program requirements or if the deSign builder encounters unanticipated concealed conditions, a change order is ordinarily appropriate. However, the single largest source of claims and change orders, problems with the design, is not available in design build projects. Performance warranties. Another consequence of single point responsibility is that it is possible to construct detailed overall performance warranties and to render them meaningful with coordinated liquidated damages clauses. For example, it is common to require the design builder to warrant that the facility will yield an output of a certain number of kilowatt hours and to link that requirement with a liquidated damages clause in the event that the output falls short of the warranty. The liquidated damages could be quantified as the market value, of each lost kilowatt hour, enabling the owner essentially to guarantee a minimum revenue stream. The ability to structure the design build contract with such meaningful remedies may be critical t6 project financing. Overall performance warranties are generally not available in traditional construction projects because the constructor may blame the designer and vice versa for the failure. Only with design build is a single entity sufficiently responsible for the project to give such a warranty. However, even in design build projects, the performance warranty will generally have exclusions for defective feedstock or other issues for which the owner is contractually responsible. Packaging other services. Some design builders have taken the concept of single point responsibility a step further, assuming additional duties in their contracts. It is common for design builders to provide turnkey services, which often include performance testing and personnel training, so that the facility is ready to operate when the owner "tums the key." Other design builders offer financing for their projects, either from a lending source or via ownership and leaseback agreements. In some industries, design builders establish operating divisions, offering to design, build and operate the facility. Continuity between designer and constructor, For some facilities, particularly those involving new technologies, it is critical ~or both the designer and constructor to understand the technology and related processes. Plans and specifications can communicate the design concepts, but they do not transfer expertise from the designer to the contractor. In design build projects, the same entity that had the expertise to design the project also constructs it. Even for facilities that do not rely on new technology, there are often communication problems between the designer and the contractor. Communication difficulties may result in an overly formal or adversarial approach to the project, usually to the owner's expense and detriment. In a design build project, the designer and contractor are the same entity, working toward the same goals, unlikely to suffer the same Design Build Construction: Advantages and Drawbacks Page 3 of 4 kinds of communication problems. Drawbacks and Obstacles Experience with design build construction has shown that it suffers from some drawbacks compared to traditional projects. Also, in some places, there are some obstacles to the use of design build project delivery methods. These drawbacks and obstacles include: Loss of checks and balances. In traditional construction, the owner retains the designer during the construction phase to act as a watchdog to help ensure that the facility is built as designed. The designer contracts directly with and owes his loyalties to the owner. In design build projects, the designer and contractor are on the same team and are often, at least technically, adverse to the owner. The degree of adversarialism may vary with the nature of the contract (lump sum contracts are more adversarial than reimbursed cost contracts) and may be reduced if the design builder is hoping to do other projects for the owner. Nevertheless, the changed incentives may pose problems for an unsophisticated owner. Owners in design build projects would be well advised either to have experienced engineers in-house or else to retain an outside consultant for this purpose. Less owner control. Because the designer is on the contractor's team in a design build project, the owner may find itself without access to the kind of information that it would have on a traditional project. Although the design builder may issue regular status reports, the information in them is usually less useful to an owner than what would ordinarily be provided by an engineer loyal to the owner. Similarly, the relationship between the designer and contractor may cause plans to be prepared with less than the traditional degree of detail, which may adversely affect the owner's ability to understand and control design intent. This drawback can be overcome by advance planning. The design build contract should specify the kinds of information and detail that the design builder must supply to the owner. The owner must have available sufficiently knowledgeable and experienced personnel or consultants to understand and analyze the information provided by the design builder. Difficulty obtaining competitive bidding~ Design build projects do not lend themselves easily to competitive bidding. The design builder is chosen at the commencement of the'Project, and there is ordinarily little competitive pressure on the contractor. However, to some extent, competitive pressures can be generated by requiring that each trade contract be competitively bid. And the compensating advantage to the inability to competitively bid the project as a whole is that a fn'm price and schedule can be guaranteed far earlier than in traditional construction. Institutional obstacles. Particularly in some areas in the United States, state and municipal laws and regulations severely limit or restrict the use of design build. Many states have competitive bidding requirements for public projects or projects funded with public money. Licensing restrictions for design professionals and contractors may restrict the types of design build business structures. Insurance and bonding may be more complicated to arrange in a design build project. However, public laws and regulations have been changing as the popularity of design build continues to grow, and the insurance and bonding industries are in the process of developing new products tailored to design build. The Design Build Contract Design Build Construction: Advantages and Drawbacks Page 4 of 4 In design build projects, the owner's most important protection is the terms of the design build contract. This is particularly true in light of the loss of checks and balances. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a list of important contract provisions, but owners should carefully consider the following observations and advice. Each design builder's standard proposal or contract form always favors the de~lgn builder. The very- structure of the interactions between the parties is typically designed to favor the design builder. For example, even seemingly innocuous provisions pertaining to owner approval of the design at various stages can be used to transfer liability from the design builder to the owner when construction in accordance with the plans fails to achieve the desired results. The standard form contract documents prepared by trade organizations (such as the AIA, AGC or EJCDC) rarely serve owners' purposes without substantial modifications. By their nature, they must be uniformly applicable and are therefore too generic for many types of projects. Furthermore, they are usually drafted to favor the trade organization that publishes them. An owner embarking on a design build project would be well advised to work closely with a lawyer experienced in projects of that type to prepare a customized design build contract. The contract should be based in part on information and provisions in the design builder's proposal. However, it should avoid incorporating the proposal in its entirety and should carefully craft the parties' rights and remedies so that it reflects their actual assumptions and understandings about the project. Contrary to the practice of many members of the construction industry, the contract should be treated as the essence and embodiment of the parties' agreement, not as a collection of boilerplate provisions to be negotiated after the deal has been made. This memorandum has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter. Under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, it may be considered advertising material. ~l Return to the Design Build Articles page WSDOT Design Build Innovative Contracting What is Design Build? Design-build means contracting with a single entity for performing both design and construction on an entire project. In a traditional WSDOT contract, the design process is completed independent of the construction contract (Design-bid-build). This separation allows WSDOT to minimize potential impacts to third parties by removing time as a critical component of the design. Right-of-way environmental permits local agency agreements and utility agreements are all either very well defined or in place prior to awarding a construction contract. This process minimizes potential risks but requires a very linear approach toward completing the project. Possible design improvements during construction can become costly and time consuming since they are made after the design is 100% complete and frequently under a very tight contractual timeline. The attractiveness of design-build lies mainly in the promise of innovation stemming from the designer/builder collaboration. If the process is applied to the right project with the right controls in place the public gets a quality product in a shorter time. Timelines Traditional Designers design the project Builders build according to the design Design improvements during construction can become costly and time consuming Design-Build Initial design takes place with feedback from builder partner Design proceeds and construction begins Feedback continues as design and then construction are completed Design-Builder for Transportation Projects As a result of recent pressures both public and private public agencies have begun experimenting with contracting methods that reduce the total project completion timeline. Design-build is being used by state transportation agencies around the country and has been successful for many years in Europe on some types of transportation projects. It is widely used int his country and in Europe on plant and facility construction projects. The 1998 Washington State Legislature authorized a test of design-build for transportation facilities. WSDOT is testing the design-build process on the SR 500. Thurston Way Interchange project. Design-build is one delivery method in WSDOT's toolbox and is not intended to replace the standard design-bid-build method. On projects where completion time is extremely important, design-build may be a viable alternative. WSDOT Design-Build Program Enabling Legislation WSDOT's current design-build legislation is contained in the following RCW's: RCW 47.20.780 RCW 47.20.785 The 2001 Washington State Legislature passed legislation that expanded WSDOT's design-build authority. The minimum project size for design-build is set at $10 million. The process will be revisited by April 2008. The following RCW specifies how certain aspects of the design-build pilot projects must be conducted: RCW 39.10.051 WSDOT Design -Build Back to the top Design-Build Prolect Criteria Prolect Criteria Funding Risk Analvsis Environmental. Right_ of Way Utilities Geotechnica lnte reements r�ency� greem t Public Endorsement WorlCf orce Opportunities Funding must be Funding bi ear y for the entire p ro j ect from the outset. The Project becomes a I on and cannot be easily delayed by WSDOT. A binding Contract t very ery Ri Analysis aired. Are t elements ed to the point that tile he rise the budder areas likely to impact either cost or schedule is re o rrisk a of develop accurately assigned the design-build iility for areas outside onaitionsr control of the p ermits, o priced? Responsibility accurately redefined changed should remain with WSDOT right of way acquisitions). Environmen originator should be obtained by require WSDOT to be the orig aired to obtain permits e dt req point where �SDOT Sequr obtain to Oe its cap n needs to es imated. tenever possible or commit to WSDOT. Design estimated. over-prescribing the final solution generic can r accurately permit permit as possible to avoid responsibility P ene a p OT assumes for obtaining any must also have workforce available to obtain the p timelines in which s WSDOT environmental permit. under the contractual timelines. Right of Way ..-:,,,,rract/desbuil 1/7/2003 in right of to obta the time requir Wheneve point where te e uired aced. which the advanced to the p can be accura of way c orridor Way prior to be approved right way plan) t he right ht of require needs to r, a of and pro purchas of a right could r t final of ct appr establis design it the must wa y SDOT should din some instances, selected walling commit which equi b to be possible, a t mus be plso be p WSp amou of time produc way OT neeescrb d final p a c ontract may r of- a signing Darts o rig ht of way within p differing m° obtRe for Proposal (RP P) workforce in the identif sure a pote' 1 d e ponsibility for Utilities W SDOT can assure assume are such tha fixed Negotiations aedule will either ontrol. or relocation schedule builder's c or sgn builder that t timelin des +g FP Within the prior to th both completed P much Geotec hnical fete or can be c significantly imp as comp atio can s e d either ical investigation nve tig can vary With the complete with e a ion �s t However, eot substantially d pendent on Geotec in vestigation Elemen °f the 9 NoWe be substa d cost. Interage issue budg Geotech ece fins design an being schedule and a the design b uilder, as o the the p ental or nght °f w Y ns for a dditiona l wok b is to limit the variability as environm tion pr s�o The inter ,n ov► des ;gn. O T Wi11 tended Agre ements the RFP being isW►1, beW° outside Interagency a in place prior t ensure that t here Will b is to c agreements ad on these a greeme nts Interagen Y the With the pro j e ct. n eed to take interfere a gency o wnership Public Endorsement such that NSDOT can tak own Pub roject is Public endorsement for the p n b,d- desi9 a standa i Workforce less FTEs than u s will be m due W ro p bou the p e on process overall will take v arious s u p port g t ugs aired by the p oces as we by various stages th than for a The design However, as welt a Also the time lficantly higher build project. rocess, a timelin will be sign in the selection of th project engineer early critical nature as sistant p e more to the engineer an project. similar design- bid -build prof „..r,iild htm 117120Q3 WSDOT Design -Build Page 5 of 7 Opportunities Given the combination of designer's and contractors workforce, opportunities for acceleration or innovation exist that could produce either a faster final project delivery or a superior final project. Back to the too WSDOT Pilot Project Overview The 1998 Washington State Legislature directed WSDOT to develop a design -build process and construct two design -build pilot projects. WSDOT interviewed transportation agencies nationwide in order to identify current design -build best practices. The resulting Guidebook for_Desian -Build Highway Project Development was used by WSDOT to develop the pilot projects. Due to subsequent funding variations, WSDOT was able to proceed with only one design -build project. WSDOT is currently in the process of evaluating design -build as a contracting tool on the SR 500 Thurston Way Interchange in Vancouver, Washington. In developing the pilot project, WSDOT made a commitment to provide a fair analysis of the design -build process. The University of Colorado Boulder was contracted to evaluate the process. Through a series of interviews, both inside and outside of WSDOT, the University of Colorado Boulder contacted as many individuals involved with the process as possible. The study has produced two interim reports. A final report will be completed by the winter of 2002. The first interim report focused on WSDOT's Request for Qualifications (RFQ) /Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Companies that expressed an interest but did not submit a statement of qualifications were contacted, as were all companies that submitted statements of qualifications. Immediately following the analysis of the Best and Final Proposals, both WSDOT personnel and design builder personnel were interviewed to obtain their impressions of the process. The second interim report focused on day -to -day contract administration. Design builder personnel and WSDOT project personnel were interviewed to determine how the design -build process was working. The final report will also include interviews with personnel involved with the process. The time required and costs for a design -build delivery will be compared to a standard design- bid -build project. This final report will be completed by the winter of 2002. In addition to this outside study, WSDOT has tracked all issues as they have arisen on the project. A WSDOT -only technical team reviews these issues to determine whether http:// www. wsdot. wa. gov /biz/InnvContract/desbuild.htm 1/7/2003 wsDG Design to the Design -Build Guidebook. ore information on the design change should be *made Form pilot projects at Piltat V aluatirt build 0 contact p s ok for Design-gul�� W enter ineer WShjo Guidebo a ev Jeff Carpenter En9 oven Pro e o s Leff Carpe wsdotwa,9py November 20 01 en 0) 705- 804 Novem dot Pro yect Gatp 7 esi Build o r Phone: WSDQT D In t e nm�'g° 2001 feu E May P�a' ild Pit °t pfOlec Ev OT DeS_ign-B_ 2002 anon: Inter.._ !m- R January Contract AdminisT aWn4.. Sues'. pro ect D-� Bu lnterch an9 e Pilot_ hon Wa` SR 5001T: urst-� Decision to the.toP Back. ppT -A C -ACED n C Team G WSDOT- AGG-ACE combined WS of a des�g its industry partners. A c surrounding delivery WSD valu?�eamu created to look into State that Design-Build program in Washington build project. design-build p su erior product at a develop a desig a nd produces a P mission is to competition a projects. The teams laying field S tandard and mega offers a level playing b on the design build competitive price for For at WSDOT, contact: Jeff Ca r p enter C En 9ineer Innovative dotty °v Ca Pent (360)705-7804 Phone: C.,pCEC T eam wsoo -AC Team Charter Des Buila Issues x ue list .Team iVl .Risk _A_l_ ►Ocation Minutes .Team Meeting pctotxe_ 2QS 1 15_2901 emb Novemb 2002 FOvary. 2 N10_16,20_02 IAPcbuild•htm W SDOT Design-Bad esign Build CoPYrignONSDCt 2002 t5 Current ou th st Reg Clark County Cu t Prol We ion S1:t 500 Teton. WaY Interc$ De guild. Picot Starts, in Transportation New E Design -guild Links to Design Build Vlen9!neer giG Window Coloradp-ED ti a tlw wvr America h esi Build Institute of A Contracti pestgn orgy Center, Innovative http t ,o_ Transfer Utah Techn usu.edui. on °T projects, �tion option Con t a ct ►n {orm as a c ontracti n g For information on th use °f design-build contact Ron Howar�ontractin9 Engineer Inn ovative h of wag °v Phone hone v 82 hone. VVSD�T Home Back to the top. tac tWSDO T W SDOS Business Traffic Roads Site Index Con _4- JAPsbui 10/2003