Chapter 4 - Managing the Project During the Design Phase

A design management process encompassing PE and Final Design. The Design Phase discussion includes both PE and Final Design. It expands on Chapter 2 that described each of the project development phases, including PE, and Final Design, and their major inputs, processes, and outputs. Chapter 2 provided greater detail on the Planning Phase, which addressed the following topics that provide direct input into this chapter:

• Systems Planning
• Alternatives Analysis
• Project Management Plan Requirements
• Rail Modernization Planning
• Bus Maintenance Facility Planning
• Project Risk Analysis and Procurement Planning
• Environmental Planning
• Financial Planning
• Joint Development Planning
• Safety and Security Management Plan Requirements

PE is initiated after completion of the DEIS and selection of the LPA in the case of an MCP, or after the development of subsystem plans for modernization projects. Final Design is the last step in project development prior to Construction. During the Design Phase, the grantee prepares the drawings, specifications, and bid documents required for awarding the individual facility construction, equipment fabrication, and installation contracts. An alternative project delivery method is to combine design and construction into a single contact.

Chapter 3 defined management principles and practices that apply to more than one phase of the project development process, including:

• Project and Management Organization
• Cost Estimation and Funding
• Scheduling
• Project Control
• Risk Assessment and Management
• Procurement and Contracts
• QA and QC
• Project Communications

As a supplement to the principles presented in Chapter 3, Chapter 4 contains project management guidelines specifically related to the Design Phase of a transit capital project.

4.1 Design Team Organization/Contracts

The management of a project is the responsibility of the grantee, which must assure that knowledgeable personnel are available to perform the required services. The level of involvement of the grantee's staff can be varied. This is especially true during the PE and Final Design Phases of a project, where mistakes or omissions can ripple into the Construction Phase often creating schedule and budget problems. A number of approaches are available to grantees in organizing the design team with varied levels of grantee involvement.

A successful design team organization starts with an honest evaluation of the grantee's strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps the most basic question for a grantee is: have we ever developed a transit project like this before? If the answer is no, then the grantee should get the professional assistance needed to launch a successful project. Some successful transit projects have limited grantee staffing and involvement, relying heavily on a general engineering consultant (GEC), while others do most of the engineering and construction management in-house. Another approach is to have a program manager organization structure with an engineering consultant. While all of these approaches can be successful, or even a mix of grantee and consultant staff, the key issue in either alternative is that all the design disciplines are covered, and that the authority for making prompt decisions is clearly understood between the grantee and the designer.

Two basic alternatives exist for organizing the design effort, depending on the degree of experience and size of the grantee's staff: 1) the grantee's staff performs all design, or 2) consultants perform all design. Given these extremes, several other arrangements are possible. For larger projects, the grantee, a GEC, or program manager can supervise and manage the work of consultants retained to design portions of the project. If a GEC or program manager is used, the selection should be based on proven successful experience on similar work performed by the firm, and a commitment to assign a manager and staff qualified to provide the services required. Where section designers are used, the grantee, GEC or program manager should establish the design criteria and system specifications, and the initial construction schedule and cost estimate. A grantee approved and mandated Project Schedule provides the constraints under which the section designers must perform their assignments.

Continuity of engineering services during the Design Phase is highly desirable. The design staff should be available from the PE Phase through Final Design. Splitting responsibility for phases can result in duplication of effort, lost time, and added expense.

The involvement of transit operations during the design stage of a capital project can help assure its successful implementation. For a mature organization, which is currently engaged in transit operations, the review and approval of design decisions by operations will minimize problems and permit safe and smooth integration of the improvement with existing operations. For new systems, sufficient expertise should be available to perform these review functions by both consultants and the initial department personnel who will have subsequent grantee responsibility for construction and operations.

A&E consultants are procured after careful evaluation of proposals. Usually, a slate or "short list" of three to five of the most highly qualified firms is designated from which a selection is made based on discussions with the firms. This must all be accomplished in accordance with Public Law 92-582, the Brooks Act. Besides giving guidance to minimum acquisition procedures, the Brooks Act also mandates that design contracts be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services required, and not on the basis of low price.

4.2 Construction Procurement Considerations

With the requirement for Procurement Planning (Chapter 2.2.6) and the management principles described in Chapter 3.5.5 (Risk Analysis and Management) and Chapter 3.6 (Procurement, Contracts, and Related Topics), the grantee should select the overall project delivery method and general procurement and contracting approaches prior to entering the Design Phase. In the Design Phase, the selected procurement approach is refined and contract documentation is prepared to permit project implementation.

The authority for procurement resides in the legislatively mandated policies and procedures in the state in which the transit project is to be built. Given that FTA funding is being used, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) also apply. The grantee must fully research and understand their state's applicable procurement and contract laws as one factor in determining the type of procurement approach to pursue - traditional, i.e., D/B/B, or alternative project delivery method, e.g., D/B.

D/B/B consists of a grantee, a separate design entity, and one or more construction contractors. The design entity is selected by the grantee to design the project and produce drawings and specifications. These are packaged into bid documents that define the work for which prospective contractors submit bids. The grantee awards the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

The traditional delivery method is intended to give the grantee control over the design and a partnership with the designer to monitor construction contractors. This situation, however, often results in an adversarial relationship between the designer and the construction contractors over issues of interpretation. It is the grantee's responsibility to have an organization and contractual framework in place to mitigate any potential risks and, ultimately, to ensure that the project is completed within budget and on time. An option selected by many grantees is to use a separate construction management consultant specializing in expediting construction and resolving design disputes or issues of interpretation.

Compared to D/B/B, each of the alternative project delivery methods has a unique way to share project risks between the grantee and the contractors. The contract provisions become the mechanism for actually assigning the risks and defining each entity's responsibilities. They must be established as part of preparing the procurement packages, which will have much different timeframes depending on whether the contractor is given design, in addition to construction, responsibilities.

4.2.1 Construction Contract Bid Documents and Requirements

Construction contract planning is conducted in the PE Phase, where the grantee sets in motion essential processes - so that when design is completed and construction is to commence - the known elements of risks are acknowledged and responsibilities are assigned to best be able to minimize them. Contract planning should be done in accordance with the grantee's objectives for the project, project-specific circumstances, and identified risks. Contract planning should result in selection of the contract specifications and terms and conditions that will act to guide both the grantee and the selected contractor(s).

The grantee must decide the number and types of contracts to be utilized in implementing the project. A range of options is available; from single to multiple prime contractors with as many as hundreds of separate contracts, and from traditional to the many alternative contracting methods. Generally, large agencies with experienced staff usually use the Multiple Prime format. Construction contract pricing alternatives are then explored; the most typical being lump-sum and unit price (based on lowest bid) payment method. Other methods include cost plus fixed fee, guaranteed maximum price, and lump sum plus special reimbursable costs.

There is little difference in the basic elements and principles of procurement of transit construction or system delivery between traditional and alternative project delivery methods. There is little innovation or uniqueness in approach required in the procurement process. While it may be cumbersome, complex, and time consuming, the traditional procurement approach presents no unusual challenges, and is well understood by those involved. The methods of procurement, basis of contract award, and types of contracts are identical and available for use in both scenarios. The difference is in the application of those procedures for the non-traditional approaches. To date, grantees have used three primary procurement approaches to implement MCPs:

• Formally Advertised (Invitation for Bids) - Provides detailed design drawings and specifications and is awarded as a firm, fixed-price contract to the responsible and responsive bidder with the lowest bid.
• Competitive Negotiations (Request for Proposal) - Provides performance specifications with evaluation of initial proposals to determine competitive range (price). Discussions are held with each proposer to assure full understanding of terms and conditions, followed by Best and Final Offer (BAFO) prior to award of contract.
• Qualification-Based Competitive Negotiations (Two-Step) (Request for Proposal) - Provides performance specifications for proposals - strongly emphasizing qualifications but precluding submission of prices, followed by the establishment of a short-list of the most qualified proposers. Discussions are held with short-listed proposers prior to selection of the best qualified entity, upon which negotiations are held for a contract, including a fair and reasonable price.

4.2.1.1 Consideration of Formally Advertised Contract Procurement

The primary difference in the Invitation for Bids process between traditional and alternative procurements is the magnitude or scope of the project - wherein the specification will not be as definitive, or as near complete, on a large project as on a smaller, well-defined project. The end result is the likelihood that more change orders will be required once the contract is awarded, thus leading to project schedule delays and cost overruns. To compensate for this inherent situation and to assure that the awarded low-price contract is not compromised due to numerous change orders, as much pricing detail as possible should be obtained in the original bid, as well as incorporating unit pricing into the contract language.

4.2.1.2 Restrictions on Non-Traditional Procurement Methods

Due to differences in the scope of services in traditional and alternative contracts, the method of procurement (formally advertised versus negotiated) and the construction contract bid documents will vary depending on whether the state statutes permit the use of either method. Where state laws prohibit the negotiation of contracts or contracts combining design and construction, the grantee has more difficulty in obtaining the "best value", since with the Formally Advertised procurement method the basis of the award will be Low-Price and the contract will be Fixed-Price. This approach will limit the grantee's ability to determine the qualification of the bidder, since bidder comments are absent or unclear, bidder "wishes," "cost-drivers," or "deal-breakers" are not always discernible, and contract changes are offered to all bidders, even perhaps offering unnecessary concessions. Negotiations, however, can result in the "best deal" for the "best price." It is a process that results in a true "meeting of the minds." The absence of contract negotiations leads to decision-making without communication.

A two-step bid process is strongly recommended since it facilitates consideration of contractor qualifications. If allowable, the ability of the grantee to negotiate a non-traditional construction contract is perhaps a much better procurement method. That comes from the grantee's ability to more closely examine the capabilities of contractors, and also to solicit their ideas and techniques for designing and building the project prior to their selection. Negotiations allow the grantee to understand and explore the real basis for concerns of the proposer. Tailored solutions can then be crafted to achieve optimum balance between risk and price, and the contractor can develop a better understanding of the grantee. Overall, negotiations can lead to optimum decisions and allow the grantee to obtain the contractor with the most advantageous approach, as well as consider other factors including price, experience, and qualifications. Contracts that are bid at a fixed price usually offer the most competitive pricing climate.

4.2.1.3 Pre-Qualification

In 1996, then President Clinton signed into law the Federal Acquisition Reform Act (FARA), thus allowing new flexibility for Federal agencies to utilize non-traditional project delivery methods. FARA represents the first significant modification in Federal procurement of A&E services since the passage of the Brooks A&E Act in 1972. It permits Federal agencies broader authority to pre-qualify or short-list eligible proposers under a "two-step" procurement. A pre-qualification process narrows the list of bidders allowed, thus providing some of the advantages for negotiated procurement, such as identifying contractors with a proven record of performance. This should also ease the selection process and help achieve the positive benefits of contract competition.

The objective of pre-qualification is to find out as much about the contractor as possible prior to entering the procurement phase. There is, however, the perception and attitude that the pre-qualification process restricts the opportunity of small, new, and disadvantaged firms to participating in the procurement process.

So long as the process is fair and competitive - where an established objective exists to openly allow sufficient participation by a number of firms - then pre-qualification can help achieve grantee goals. This process is consistent with the Common Grant Rule as well as FTA Circular 4220.1D (8)(d) [Ref. 42], which states that "grantees shall ensure that all lists of pre-qualified persons, firms, or products that are used in acquiring goods and services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure maximum full and open competition." To minimize the opportunity for "bid shopping" of DBE firms, FTA policy requires that all DBE firms be identified at the time of proposal, and that no substitutions be allowed without prior approval. DBE incentive/disincentive clauses tied to meeting DBE participation goals are also an option. One example is to impose liquidated damages if the DBE goal is not achieved.

4.2.1.4 Issues and Opportunities for Industry Reviews in Contract Procurement

Generally, industry reviews are used when competitively negotiated procurements are being contemplated to address the inherent uncertainties and complexities. Industry reviews provide opportunities for contractors to submit comments on a one-to-one basis not available during the normal procurement cycle. It is an important process in non-traditional procurements, since it addresses questions and concerns regarding financing, level of engineering, risk management, and project management roles and responsibilities. Discussion of comments in scheduled meetings with the individual contractor is very beneficial.

Due to the magnitude and complexity of procurements involving design and possibly O&M and/or financing in addition to construction, it is imperative that potential issues and/or problems in the procurement be identified early, and addressed before the procurement cycle begins. It is advantageous for the grantee to accommodate industry comments for any non-traditional project, where feasible, in order to modify the solicitation package before the procurement cycle begins.

4.2.2 Subcontracting and the Utilization of Small and Disadvantaged Firms

A number of Federal and local laws relating to the provision for, and compliance with, labor and equal opportunities provisions come into play in both traditional and non-traditional contracting. Third party subcontracting issues - especially incorporating small, medium, and disadvantaged (both minority and women-owned) business enterprises (S/DBE) - has become an issue to be addressed by public agencies. The goal should be to provide for an atmosphere where conditions for maximum opportunity and encouragement to participate can exist.

A perception exists that alternative project delivery methods have the potential to reduce the opportunity for small, mid-sized, and DBE firms, because the number of prime contractors are reduced. For many MCPs using non-traditional procurement methods, large teams may be required to perform construction, in addition to other functions such as design, O&M, financing, and joint development. As a result, smaller firms could be "squeezed out"' or relegated to less visible roles, without direct client interaction. The main concern is that these firms may not be afforded opportunities for leadership roles in proposal preparation or project execution, thus failing to develop the experience to grow and contribute meaningfully to the next project, and instead become merely "body shops."

4.2.2.1 Utilization of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses

The TDP provides examples of grantee leadership on the topic of S/DBE utilization. Not only have these projects conducted an extensive search for S/DBE firms representing the full gamut of potential services, but have assisted them in becoming certified and pre-qualified. Grantees also have been proactive in making potential prime contractors aware of available S/DBE firms.

To achieve their S/DBE utilization objectives, both the BART SFO Airport Extension and Los Angeles Union Station Gateway TDPs conducted extensive and comprehensive outreach efforts. These included sending out pre-qualification statements to hundreds of potential subcontractors. Additionally, both projects voluntarily incorporated or mandated 25-30% S/DBE goals (far above the federally mandated 10%) in their request for proposals (RFPs), development agreements, and contract language for all phases of work. FTA's Office of Small/Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) maintains a national list of qualified and professional small and minority firms that can provide design, engineering, and construction support.

4.2.2.2 Assurances for S/DBE Compliance

The TDP projects thus far have distinguished themselves in their inclusion of S/DBE firms in subcontracting. The issue of commitment or attainment of S/DBE inclusion is solely due to the firm position on the part of the elected official of that particular community, as well as transit board members and staff to expand opportunities through assertive efforts towards recruitment, certification, and monitoring compliance.

Major shortcomings and challenges are still present in transit procurement with regard to accomplishing stated S/DBE goals in the contract, clarification of what counts as DBE - especially when it comes to second and third tier subcontractors - and finally, monitoring and recording the compliance. The LACMTA contracted a separate firm to accomplish these important functions, while BART required the design-build contractors to provide their own DBE compliance officer to serve as a liaison with BART's Affirmative Action Department.

Issues have also been raised that stem from predatory business practices and abuses by prime contractors as it relates to subcontractor substitutions or "sub-busting," "fronting," "bid-shopping," release of retention, "striker replacement" tactics, and "slow or no pay."

To assure DBE compliance, some grantees have stringent Liquidated Damages clauses for failure to comply. BART required the prime contractors to notify them of the names of proposed DBE firms prior to bidding, and required documentation to assure that those firms actually received subcontracts. BART also addressed the cash-flow management issue for small businesses by increasing its payment schedule to twice a month. Incorporating strong "make or buy" clauses based on incentives and disincentives in the contract could also greatly reduce "bid shopping."

4.3 Design Criteria and Standards

Building on the project definition inherent in the LPA, design and operational criteria are to be fully developed for new projects during the PE process. This information is typically developed by subsystem (i.e., structures, stations, vehicles, signals, traction power, communications, yards, and shops) during the Planning Phase for modernization projects.

The remainder of this section provides a list of general tasks that should be accomplished, as needed, during PE for MCPs. While these apply primarily to new fixed guideway projects, many elements also relate to aspects of rail modernization and bus facility projects. For modernization projects, studies may be necessary to assess facility and system conditions, and to develop a portfolio the highest priority improvements to be advanced as modernization projects.

4.3.1 Operating Performance and Facilities Requirements

4.3.1.1 Perform Surveys

This task includes the surveys that may be required to properly investigate alternative configurations and construction methods:

• Control surveys
• Aerial and surface topography surveys and planimetrics
• Major utility surveys
• Subsurface geologic/seismic exploration
  • Compilation and review of geology data from city and state agencies
  • Subsurface test borings and seismic tests, as necessary
  • Interpretation of boring logs and development of geotechnical report
  • Development of segment design criteria based on geologic/seismic tests
  • Building foundation inventory
• Major utility surveys
• Identification of utilities to be relocated and cost estimates for their relocation
• Other surveys, as required

4.3.1.2 Conduct System Studies

The criteria for all subsystems should be developed after completion of all studies and evaluations. Necessary studies help to establish both system and subsystem requirements including:

• Evaluation of operational and facility alternatives through simulations:
  • Analysis to determine the effect of the proposed operations plan on future extensions of the system
  • Analysis of station spacing, station length, and train headway based on studies for patronage, development, and system operating speed
  • Analysis of effect of incremental development of automatic train operations (ATO) vs. initial full utilization
  • Analysis to determine the effect of alternative modes of operation such as coasting, lower acceleration, etc., on transit performance and vehicle life
  • Analysis to determine substation number, capacity, and location
• Energy evaluation - study should include a thorough analysis, sufficiently detailed, to demonstrate the energy consumption and cost impacts of the options selected for line, profile, and stations, and to investigate the benefits of regenerative braking.
• Travel demand - by station for 10 and 20-year horizon and determination of the effect of patronage volumes on the initial station sizing.
• Determination of required vehicle size and train consist - study based on a thorough in-depth review of vehicle types available and considering the following factors: patronage volumes, service policy, safety, reliability, maintainability, costs, availability, and influence on structure costs.
• Noise/vibration study - to determine noise/vibration mitigation measures necessary to meet the meet environmental requirements.
• Operable segments - determine the effects of constructing the proposed system in operable segments, considering the entire system as the largest segment.
• Evaluation of fare policies and collection systems
• Hazard analyses to support safety requirements
• Threat and vulnerability assessments to support security requirements
• Bus routing analysis to determine garage size and locations
• Power supply
• Corrosion protection requirements
• Electromagnetic interference (EMI) mitigation requirements
• Tunnel ventilation requirements
• Train control alternatives including moving and fixed block systems
• Failure management alternatives
• ADA accessibility requirements

4.3.1.3 Select Way and Structure Types

The alignment should be developed beyond the definition contained in the LPA to describe the various structure types necessary for the project. Minor alternative alignments should be evaluated within the corridor, as required, to the degree they are within the LPA definition. The following way and structure types should be considered during the development of the alternative alignments and for development of design criteria:

• Tunnel, cut and cover, open cut, surface, and elevated structures, as appropriate, along the corridor, if they haven't already been defined in the LPA.
• Tunneling with various profiles and alternative construction methods to permit evaluation in terms of:
  • Costs
  • Feasibility of construction
  • Schedule impact
  • Impact on community and environment

Completion of this work will lead to selection of the final profile and structure type for each portion of the line and a set of preliminary drawings and specifications that will provide a basis for preparing a cost estimate. These include:

• Alignment drawings showing plan and profile for the entire system.
• Details of way structures for all variations in configuration and cross sections, as needed, to show transitions and/or problem areas. These drawings should include the location of all crossovers and pocket and lay-up tracks in coordination with operating plans. Particular construction methods should be specified for underpinning problems, non-standard elements, or where major subsurface utilities are expected.
• Preliminary plans and estimates for all necessary public and private utility line changes. All necessary master utility agreements should be negotiated and completed to the extent possible before completion of preliminary design. In some cases, these agreements will not be completed until after funding is committed; however, they must be completed soon thereafter in order not to delay construction.
• Preliminary ROW drawings showing the extent of properties affected with a list of property takings and easements required. A schedule of ROW acquisitions and approvals should be prepared in an effort to minimize construction delays.

4.3.1.4 Develop Station Preliminary Plans

Station design should include the development of station concepts compatible with the various plan/profile alternatives developed for way and structures. Such studies should include alternative construction techniques. Selection of station types and construction methods should be based on cost, compatibility with adjacent construction, effect on schedule, design, and construction, as well as the impact on the community and environment.

The preliminary design drawings and specifications should be of sufficient scope to define all station functions and elements for both the public and ancillary spaces, including equipment and materials, as appropriate. The station design process should involve the following factors and others as appropriate:

• Develop and recommend policies and obtain grantee approval for such elements as public and employee restrooms, fare collection, security, concession spaces, vertical circulation, graphics, intermodal connections, hours of operation, standardization of layout and materials, and attendants.
• Develop system-wide architectural planning and civil standards and criteria for materials, noise control, signage and graphics, lighting, mechanical and electrical equipment, vertical circulation elements, and accessibility provisions. Investigate all station elements suitable for standardized design and construction.
• Determine required number of station entrances and exits, intermodal interface requirements, sizes of waiting areas and ancillary spaces, number of stairs, elevators and escalators, and ticketing facilities using patronage forecasts, operating plans, joint development potential, and design constraints.
• Determine specific station location and develop plans, sections, and elevations based on the selected way, plan, and profile. Determine location and space allocations of ancillary spaces appropriate for system operation and adaptable to future extensions, if appropriate. Station layouts should provide the minimum practical volume while incorporating efficient loading of trains and convenient patron usage. Develop functional parking garage layouts where required, using commercial standards and pricing guidelines where possible.
• Coordinate all station elements with those of way and structures, and systems groups.
• Select the construction method for each station and determine how the method affects both the station design and surrounding area.
• Determine if system-wide procurements for electrical and mechanical equipment components are practical and feasible.
• Complete all utility surveys and agreements to a level that will allow station design and construction to advance without interruption.
• Prepare preliminary maintenance procedures and estimate annual maintenance costs based on total number and skills of required station maintenance personnel.
• Determine measures to minimize adverse community and environmental impacts.
• Secure required station area design approvals.

4.3.1.5 Develop Yard and Shop Criteria

Before investigating specific site locations, all yard functions should be defined, and the yard layout criteria should be established. Project definition should be developed to a level consistent with the PE effort. The following should be determined:

• General features of the transit vehicle to be used
• Number of trains to be stored initially and in the future
• Inspection and repair cycle
• Maintenance functions to be performed and general procedures
• Number of employees, crew quarters, and parking facilities required
• Requirements for special shop equipment
• Material storage for the operating system
• Wayside system maintenance facilities and revenue collection facility
• Vehicle test facilities
• Vehicle test track
• Central control locations (if in yard, determine size and functions)
• Location of training center (if in yard, determine size and functions)
• Railroad sidings to deliver transit cars
• Yard location requirements due to operating system configuration

In the development of yard and shop plans, details, and preliminary specifications, tasks should include the evaluation of all feasible alternative sites and a final selection of the optimum site. The results of PE should be a set of plans, specifications, and estimates sufficiently detailed to provide reliable project costs and a method for obtaining required approvals. Alternative locations for outlying storage and maintenance yards should be evaluated based on their effect on operable segments and schedule, area requirements, operational characteristics, impact on community and environment, and the probability of acquiring the proposed site.

Using data developed in the planning stage, alternative layouts, ROW drawings, and cost estimates should be prepared and the optimum site selected, considering availability, costs, neighborhood compatibility, security problems and any other significant aspects. Yard plans should include storage track layout, related track facilities, and major inspection and shop buildings, detailing both major functions and areas required. The need for future yard expansion should be considered. The yard and shop process should involve the following factors and others, as appropriate:

• Complete all utility surveys and agreements to a level that will allow design and construction to advance without interruption.
• Prepare preliminary maintenance procedures and estimate annual maintenance costs based on the total number and skills of required maintenance personnel.
• Determine measures to minimize adverse community and environmental impacts.
• Take all appropriate steps necessary for required station area design approvals.

4.3.1.6 Design Criteria for System Components

Design criteria for system components should be developed after the completion of studies to select those systems and subsystems that are appropriate to the project. Alternative systems should be evaluated in terms of criteria that include:

• Capital costs
• Labor requirements
• O&M costs
• Safety and security
• Reliability, availability, maintainability, and dependability
• Complexity
• Incremental growth
• Probable public receptivity
• Impact on environment

Selection of the optimum elements for the given project should lead to a set of preliminary plans and specifications sufficiently developed to allow the estimation of project costs. The project schedule should include an estimate of the length of time required to undertake a negotiated procurement and to perform both the Final Design and the Construction Phases for the particular elements and their overall phasing sequence into the project. A preliminary maintenance schedule and an estimate of annual labor hours and costs should be prepared for the particular system. An estimate of start-up costs should be included with the PE cost estimate. This estimate should include pre-operation testing and start-up costs, schedule, lead time required, and the assessment of spare parts required. A summary of the typical PE Phase outputs for each subsystem includes:

• Function
• Capacity
• Configuration
• Dimensions
• Materials/equipment
• Capital cost
• O&M requirements and general procedures
• O&M labor requirements
• O&M cost
• Schedule requirements
• Expansion capabilities
• Flexibility for future changes
• Impact on reliability, availability, and safety
• Preliminary plans and specifications
• Sources of supply and market competitiveness
• Supporting documentation - general provisions, standards, etc.

The remainder of this section addresses specific design criteria development issues for typical subsystems.

• Vehicles - The number of vehicles required is based upon patronage projections, service standards, and schedule requirements. Vehicle performance requirements should be evaluated in order to assure that scheduled performance can be met. Each vehicle subsystem should be evaluated in terms of total vehicle compatibility, optimum reliability, maintainability, and performance. The resulting vehicle should be similar to existing fleets, so as not to create a totally unique vehicle. It should use proven subsystems and be compatible with the existing fleet, if an expansion project.
• Traction power - Preliminary layouts of the power system that locate all major subsystems such as substations and tie breaker stations should be prepared. Substation size, spacing, and equipment requirements should be evaluated considering:
  • Alternate voltage levels
  • Contact rail options
  • Back-up systems
  • Necessary redundancy
  The line voltage equipment type and sizes, traction and ancillary power usage split, and power delivery system should be determined. Alternative emergency power supply requirements should be evaluated. Local power utilities back-up requirements, procedures, and problems involved should be examined. This should include investigating power sources, peak requirements, rate structure, and reliability analysis. Those system units that can be prepackaged in accordance with local union agreements should be determined and pre-purchase options, where applicable, should be recommended.
• Ancillary power (electrical distribution for support facilities) - Voltage, type of equipment, power source, equipment size, and emergency/background requirements for the ancillary power system should be determined, along with appropriate room sizes that are required for the equipment.
• Train control - Alternate systems of vehicle or train control including wayside, signal, cab signaling systems, central control, and train supervision, should be studied and evaluated with consideration of the initial and life cycle costs and the long-term probabilities of state-of-the-art modifications and their effect on the system. The compatibility of various manufacturers' equipment in the same control system should be studied and evaluated to show advantages or disadvantages and costs. The number of interlockings required and the location of major relay rooms and their size should be identified. Those systems, which can be pre-packaged in accordance with local labor agreements, should be identified.
• Traffic signal system interface - LRT and BRT systems often operate with grade crossings with streets and highways. Grantees need to work with local traffic management agencies to obtain their approval to allow the transit project to revise the traffic signal system. The goals should be to provide priority for transit vehicles in order to minimize trip time, wear and tear on vehicles and the guideway, and to maximize safety. The "priority" typically afforded to transit involves the shortening of the traffic signal cycle to allow transit to pass through the crossing or intersection while allowing any current signal phases the minimum time to complete, i.e., allowing pedestrians to reach a safe zone. The term "pre-emption" is often used, but it involves an immediate change of the signals and ignores traffic and pedestrian. Pre-emption is reserved for emergency vehicles.

• Communications - Appropriate systems should be studied, evaluated, and selected for:
  • Telephone service
  • Data transmission
  • Public address systems
  • Security/cameras
  • Fire detection
  • Mobile radios
  • Cable systems
  • Security/intrusion detection alarms
  • Fare collection
  Applicable systems should be made compatible with the requirements of police and fire communications systems.
• Ventilation - The various types of ventilation needed for indoor facilities should be determined. A major consideration is appropriate modes of response to emergencies, such as smoke, fire, and WMDs (chemical, biological, nuclear). This may include:
  • Natural air system
  • Underplatform exhaust system
  • Mechanical ventilation, both normal and emergency
  • Air cooling system (if provided) for stations and/or offices
  The Subway Environment Design Handbook [Ref. 50] should be used as a detailed source of guidance on the topic of subway ventilation.
  
  Guidelines for Managing Suspected Chemical and Biological Agent Incidents in Rail Tunnel Systems [Ref. 23] includes ventilation recommendations.
• Fare collection - Alternative systems of fare collection and revenue control should be studied and evaluated, based on any existing grantee fare system structure, fare evasion projections, capital and operating costs, and in consideration of future system expansion.
• Trackwork - Preliminary horizontal and vertical centerline alignments should be developed during PE. The trackbed requirements to adhere to noise level and operational criteria developed under the system definition task should be determined. Track weight and gauge should be selected. Preliminary trackwork plans and profiles, typical sections and specifications, including yards, should be prepared for the entire system.
• Drainage - A layout of all drainage required for track structures, stations, parking lots, downstream improvements, detention, and major ancillary rooms should be prepared to show all major sumps and where drainage water will be discharged. The need for permits and approvals should be determined, including authorization to discharge waste water. The need for specialized equipment, such as oil separators, should also be determined.
• Safety, Fire Protection, and Security - The grantee should develop a system-wide Safety and Fire Protection Plan. This plan should be consistent with all applicable local and state codes and transit industry standards. Local and state approvals for proposed systems should be obtained, where necessary. The Safety and Fire Protection Plan should include the following systems:
  • Fire detection and protection system
  • Fire management and control plan
  • Passenger fire emergency egress plan
  The National Fire Protection Association Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit Systems - NFPA 130 [Ref. 51] establishes minimum fire protection requirements for fixed guideway transit subsystems. Local jurisdictions should be consulted on code adoption.
  
  Section 4.3.3 addresses system safety and security requirements and approaches in detail that will result in the definition of design criteria for systems and equipment.
• Work equipment - A work equipment requirement list and acquisition schedule should be developed. This should include all specialized track equipment such as work trains, rail grinders, etc., and all major shop equipment and vehicles. It should also include vehicles for security and operating personnel.

4.3.1.7 Computer-Assisted Design and Drafting

CADD software packages can be extremely helpful in developing drawings and design specifications. CADD and companion software permits planning, cost estimation, cost allocation, and maintenance planning. A CADD system maintains a database of standard elements that can be easily incorporated into a design. Summary and detailed lists of equipment and material quantities can be rapidly produced for alternative design combinations. CADD is also a useful tool for ensuring compatible design interfaces.

4.3.2 Applicable Codes and Standards

To guide the design process, the grantee or its consultant must compile a list of all applicable Federal, state, and local codes and standards for the project being advanced. One such Federal requirement is compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

4.3.3 Safety and Security

Section 2.2.11 described FTA's requirement for developing SSMPs. While SSMPs are required in conjunction with obtaining new FFGAs, many of the principles apply to all capital projects. For projects under the jurisdiction of the SSO Program, the safety and security of capital projects are governed by the grantee's SSPP. While there are currently general requirements provided by FTA to the SSO agency related to the oversight of capital projects, at the agency's discretion, additional requirements can be imposed. An example is that Safety Certification (SC) is required as part of SSMPs, but it is currently only a recommended best practice under the SSO Program. Nevertheless, many grantees utilize SC on their MCPs, even those not subject to the SSMP requirement. It is recommended that for projects not under the SSO Program (commuter rail and bus projects), including all MCPs and many other transit capital projects, the spirit of the provisions of the SSMPs be followed.

FTA's draft guidance for SSMPs [Ref. 2] recommends that a typical process of advancing safety and security issues through the PE and Final Design Phases should include the following activities and products:

• Concept Reviews and Preliminary Design
  • PMP
  • SSMP
  • Certification Program for Safety and Security
  • Safety and Security Policy and Schedule Control
  • Preliminary Safety and Security Certifiable Elements and Items
  • Preliminary Hazard List
  • Preliminary Vulnerability List
  • Existing Safety and Security Design Criteria/Technical Specifications
  • Applicable Codes, Standards, and Regulations
  • Safety and Security Design Reviews and Approvals
• Complete Preliminary Engineering
  • Update PMP, SSMP, and Safety and Security Certification Program
  • Update Safety and Security Certifiable Elements and Items
  • Preliminary Hazard Analysis
  • Threat and Vulnerability Analysis
  • Preliminary Safety and Security Design Criteria (or Manual)
  • Preliminary Safety and Security Performance Requirements
  • Safety and Security Design Reviews and Approvals
• Initiate Final Design
  • Update PMP, SSMP, and Safety and Security Certification Program
  • Update Safety and Security Certifiable Elements and Items
  • System, Subsystem, and Software Hazard Analysis; Security Analysis
  • Final Safety and Security Design Criteria
  • Final Safety and Security Performance Requirements
  • Preliminary Technical Specifications
  • Preliminary Safety and Security Design Conformance Verification Checklists
  • Safety and Security Design Reviews and Approvals
• Complete Final Design
  • Update PMP, SSMP, and Safety and Security Certification Program
  • Final Safety and Security Certifiable Elements and Items
  • Complete Hazard Reports and Assessments
  • Complete Vulnerability Reports and Assessments
  • Final Safety and Security Technical Specifications
  • Final Safety and Security Design Conformance Verification Checklists
  • Preliminary Test Plan Requirements
  • Safety and Security Design Reviews and Approvals
• Design Verification and Specifications
  • Update PMP, SSMP, and Safety and Security Certification Program
  • Complete Safety and Security Design Conformance Checklists
  • Final Testing Requirements
  • Manage Deviations and Work-Arounds
  • Issue Certification for Design

4.3.4 Environmental Documentation and Mitigation Requirements

Where required, a DEIS should have been completed either during the Planning Phase as part of the MIS or following the MIS in accordance with the joint FTA/FHWA Metropolitan Planning Regulations [Ref. 4]. Following circulation of the DEIS and not later than 30 days after selection of an LPA, the FTA must allow a project to move to the PE stage, providing that the project is justified on a broad range of criteria and has local financial commitment.

The FEIS should be completed during PE, which should complete the environmental documentation process for the project. The FEIS will be processed in the same manner of the DEIS. In special cases, a supplemental DEIS will be required during PE if the DEIS did not contain sufficient detail to allow public comment on site-specific environmental impacts or if a lengthy enough period ensued between the draft and final to make it prudent to reevaluate the proposed project's environmental impacts.

The grantee must assure that the environmental mitigation measures for which commitments were made in the FEIS are reflected in the PE design criteria and final design drawings and specifications.

4.4 Real Estate Acquisition

Real property to be used in a Federally-assisted transit project must be acquired and its occupants relocated in compliance with 49 CFR Part 24, the regulations that implement the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 as Amended (Uniform Act) [Ref. 52]. A successful project also requires that acquisition and displacement activity comply with individual state statutory and judicial case law.

The grantee has pre-award authority to acquire property after the issuance of the environmental document, i.e., ROD, FONSI, or CE, but Federal participation is not assured until there is a grant authorizing acquisition activities. Because the acquisition of property can prejudice the alternatives selection process, generally, only certain railroad ROW corridors and associated property can be acquired prior to issuance of the project's environmental document.

FTA is preparing FTA Guidelines for ROW Project Development and a manual for Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Transit Projects, which will be available soon at FTA's Real Estate Website. 

FTA's real estate acquisition guidance will include the following topics:

• Need for ROW plans, when there are a substantial number of partial acquisitions.
• Timing of geodetic studies to determine scope for certified designs, surveys and legal descriptions, and title searches - all necessary in order to appraise partial acquisitions.
• Timing of Phase I/II contamination examinations, necessary for valuing property.
• Relocation planning - from conceptual to preparation for displacement.
• Importance of status report of property possession prior to advertisement and, if necessary, prior to NTP.

A real estate acquisition and management program should begin in earnest during PE. A Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan (RAMP) is an integral part of the PMP. Qualified ROW professionals should provide input into the decision-making process regarding potential alignments. Such involvement often saves money and time as the project progresses. Primarily the input is in the form of studies regarding acquisition and relocation impacts, costs, and time constraints for different options. Procedures should be put in place to confirm an understanding of legal requirements, knowledge of the different technical skills that will be needed to acquire property and conduct relocation assistance, and a firm grasp of how to accurately estimate the time required to make the property legally available for construction. The real estate program should develop the following, as applicable for the project:

• Identification/Certification of Real Estate Required - ROW (permanent/ temporary), easements (permanent/temporary), and lesser interests (permanent/temporary).
• Appraisal Plan - Staff and/or contract appraisals, review of appraisals, support of litigation (condemnation actions), and coordination for value impact caused by contamination.
• Acquisition Plan - Title commitments, negotiators, closing agents/attorneys, eminent domain attorneys for potential condemnation, and others.
• Property Management Plan - Interim use/maintenance prior to project construction and management of excess property prior to disposal.
• Relocation Planning - Early conceptual studies to be followed with advance planning adequate to legally relocate occupants and personal property from the property needed for the project.
• Demolition Plan - Procurement and administration of demolition contracts and use or sale of improvements and salvable materials.
• Excess Property Inventory - Property believed to be in excess shall be inventoried for later joint development ventures, disposal, and other potential uses.
• Schedule and Funding Plan - Schedule of real estate activities to meet requirements for project scheduling, budgeting, administration, and accounting.
• Transit Joint Development Plan - While not necessarily developed by the real estate organization, this planning document should provide an assessment of opportunities in conjunction with local land use plans and innovative financing techniques.

The RAMP established in PE should be reviewed and updated to reflect the Final Design plans and specifications. Where realignment or changes in plans that affect the real estate occur, the acquisition plan and schedule must be updated.

All real estate necessary for the construction work must be acquired in accordance with the construction schedule. This means prior to the award of a contract and, preferably, before advertisement for bid. This is because uncertainty regarding the availability of the needed ROW affects contractors' bids. If the ROW is not available at construction, contractors may have to "work around" unacquired parcels in order to maintain the project schedule creating the potential for contractor claims.

Since many transit capital projects involve real estate, it is essential that a comprehensive real estate program exist. This is particularly so for federally assisted construction projects subject to the legal requirements of the Uniform Act and State law. In addition, environmental laws at the Federal and state levels increase the liability connected with real estate acquisition. Issues related to alignment and real estate acquisition have had major impacts on transit project capital costs.

It is also important that real estate matters be closely coordinated between the project planners, programmers, designers, engineers, environmental specialists, construction managers, and the real estate organization. This coordination should stimulate the development by each element of the team of general knowledge concerning the nature and scope of the other team members' functions and interfaces. It should result in the development of a real estate schedule that reflects the estimated time of the sequential steps to be taken by the real estate organization throughout the acquisition, relocation, and demolition process.

This schedule must be integrated into the project schedule baseline and be flexible enough to meet program modifications. As an example, partial acquisitions cannot be defined nor acquired without an advanced design completion, therefore, when project design is not delivered on schedule, it has a domino effect on the entire project schedule. Also, a design change - even one that reduces an acquisition area - requires the real estate group to initiate all over again the valuation and negotiations for that parcel. The law requires that residential persons displaced by the project be offered a comparable dwelling that is decent, safe, and sanitary, and made affordable through supplement payments. Thus, a failure to conduct timely interviews to understand individual comparability, affordability, and "decent, safe, and sanitary" needs could unexpectedly affect the project schedule. A determination must be made whether a property to be acquired contains hazardous materials. One must also assess the impact on the property value and determine the measures necessary to protect the public during remediation and construction.

The PMP should identify the responsibilities for real estate acquisition, locations, availability, restrictions, residual prerogatives of former owners, and any special covenants or construction precautions that must be observed. Real estate program documentation and individual construction contracts must specify, in explicit detail, the restrictions and provisions for the conduct of construction on public and private lands. This is particularly important if there are requirements to retain certain landscaped finishes and special requirements for drainage and land restoration at the conclusion of the project.

4.5 Negotiation of Agreements

All project activities requiring interagency agreements and approvals must be identified and scheduled early in the PE Phase. These activities would include, but not be limited to:

• Utility relocations
• Encroachment on other public transportation ROWs
• Permits and/or waivers

It is normally necessary to relocate or rearrange existing facilities prior to the construction of a major transit project. This includes franchise utilities (power, telephone, cable, gas, steam, etc.), public facilities (highways, streets, sewer, water, drainage, fire services, traffic control, etc.), and railroads. During PE, master agreements should be developed and negotiations initiated and completed with utilities, and public and private agencies, to the degree possible. These agreements should ensure that the project will not be delayed during either the Design or Construction Phases and should provide for the following:

• Scope of work and obligations/rights of both parties
• Responsibility for design
• Responsibility for construction and relocation/rearrangements
• Responsibility for inspection
• Procedures for billing and payments
• Disputes resolution procedures
• Preparation and terms of detailed agreements
• Salvage materials/credits
• Substitutions and betterments
• Conflict resolution procedures
• Improvement and replacement standards
• Parameters for scheduling work

The need for interagency agreements and approvals should be continually monitored and should be fully integrated into the Final Design Phase work in preparation for commencement of construction. The master utility agreements negotiated during PE should be refined into detailed agreements for each contract/section and should indicate provisions for the following:

• Detailed design for specific relocation/rearrangement
• Schedule
• Cost, salvage, and betterment
• Conditions of performance
• Payment for services
• Work orders (direction to proceed)

4.5.1 Governmental Jurisdictions

Transit projects involve interaction with government agencies as funding partners, regulators, or representing the communities in which the transit project resides. In any event, the role of each agency and the issues to be negotiated must be thoroughly examined early in the project development process to address their requirements without jeopardizing the project's public support or schedule. In many cases, there is not a direct link between an agency's needs and its requirement to provide the funding to support the transit project.

4.5.2 Utilities

Utilities can have both a direct and indirect impact on a transit capital project. Direct impacts occur when a utility connection is required for the transit project itself, such as electricity, water, and telephone. Utilities are involved indirectly when their infrastructure must be relocated to make way for the transit project. It must be determined who is responsible for acquiring easements for relocating utilities.

4.5.3 Railroad and Other Transportation Entities

Railroads and other transportation entities (including state and municipal roadways) may control property that a grantee needs to acquire or to access (either temporarily or permanently) to construct or operate a transit project. The grantee must carefully plan the process of negotiation early in the project development process, recognizing the unique forces that motivate a particular public or private sector organization. This recognition will provide an understanding of the organization's requirements and, therefore, the factors that will influence successful resolution of any conflicts.

4.5.4 Environmental Compliance

Grantee interactions with all affected environmental oversight agencies and organizations should be directed at establishing relationships that will support the negotiation of detailed agreements, and permit the transit project to advance while complying with the need to mitigate all project related impacts. These relationships begin during the EIS process and evolve into formal agreements during the Design Phase. The agreements should define grantee and agency responsibilities, authorities, and processes during the Construction and Revenue Service Phases. See Section 2.2.7 for additional guidance.

4.5.5 Joint Development

Joint development in conjunction with a transit capital project can be complex public-private partnership undertakings that require lengthy periods of planning and negotiation to reach agreement. During the transit design process, agreements must be negotiated and design reviews conducted to optimize the potential benefits to both the transit system and the developer. See Section 2.2.10 for additional guidance.

4.6 Design Management

4.6.1 Design Coordination

Those responsible for design must assure coordination with the following:

• The objectives of the project as defined in the Planning Phase
• The design criteria established at the outset of PE
• All of the project stakeholders, both external agencies and the grantee staff, representing:
  • Operations
  • Maintenance
  • Engineering
  • Safety
  • Security
  • Procurement
  • Real estate
  • Other functions, as appropriate

Coordination should occur less formally at the front end of the design process and more formally through the design review process. In addition to the involvement of external stakeholders, a public involvement program should be maintained to inform and receive input from potential system users and the public at large.

Starting with the baseline established during the Planning Phase, the description of the project will evolve during PE and Final Design, culminating in the construction procurement documents. A configuration management process should be established to document and justify changes made to the baseline project definition, with approvals of appropriate representatives of the grantee's staff. See Section 3.5.4 for additional guidance on principles for controlling project configuration and changes, and Section 5.1.12 on configuration management during construction.

4.6.2 Systems Integration

The purpose of the systems integration function is to ensure compatibility among the various elements of the project and between the project and the existing transit system, if applicable. For fixed guideway transit projects, the systems to be integrated can include the guideway (structures, track, roadway), traction power (substations), power distribution (catenary, third rail), control (center control, signals, train control), communications (operator, public, emergency response), vehicles, ventilation, yards and shops, and O&M, rules, procedures, and training.

During the Final Design Phase, the system integration function should consist of the following steps:

• Assure that the documents fulfill the functional requirements of the design criteria and are consistent with the operating plans, procedures, and rules.
• Assure that the systems elements (e.g., vehicle, power, control, communications, fare collection) are mutually compatible. At the same time, assure that the facility elements (e.g., ROW, guideway, structures stations, maintenance, vehicle storage and other permanent facilities) will accommodate the system elements.
• Assure that the partitioning of the work in one set of documents match the portioning of work in the documents for adjacent and underlying work.

4.6.3 Design Reviews

Design reviews are a vital element of the entire design management process, and should be explicitly included in the schedule for the design effort. The smooth functioning of the design review process depends on individual reviewer's attitudes, communications between disciplines, knowledge of project interfaces, and the skill of the project engineer in establishing the design review objectives. The fundamental purpose of the design reviews is to ensure the following:

• Quality of the design
• Identification of errors and omissions
• Building codes are met
• Operational and functional objectives are met
• Coordination between engineering disciplines
• Adherence of cost estimates to the budget
• Designers have feedback before progressing further
• Design is biddable, constructible, and cost-effective
• Interface compatibility: adjacent project elements and the existing transit system
• Final construction contract documents comply with the design criteria, codes, and regulations
• A detailed, unbiased, analytical approach is given to all of the above items which is not:
  • An argument over designer's choice.
  • A requirement for the consultant to design more than is specified in the scope of work.
  • A design competition for iterating an infinite number of schemes until every conceivable design solution is exhausted.

The Project Master Schedule (as illustrated by a CPM network diagram) should contain the planned schedules for completion and review submissions at the specified levels of design for both consultant and in-house design. This design schedule should be discussed during negotiations between the design consultant and the grantee, and should be included in the consultant's contract. All design management personnel having review responsibility should be aware of the finalized schedule, and considerable effort should be made to adhere to the schedule. Design management should be focused on setting priorities for design packaging, assisting in technical interpretations, and making minor adjustments in scheduling until there is final acceptance of drawings and specifications.

Design reviews involve a formalized, structured approach to ensure the reviews are comprehensive, objective, professional, and properly documented. Reviews should include grantee project personnel, consultants, operations, and construction management staff that will ensure that project objectives are met. Design review schedules must be maintained in order to meet established construction start dates and other program milestones. The basic steps to guide these reviews are presented as follows:

• Presubmission review - Before detailed reviews of design submissions are conducted, a presubmission or onboard review of the Final Design documents should be performed to determine if the submission is likely to meet the terms of the design scope of work and to consider comments from any prior review. If the documentation for the scheduled submission is incomplete or does not represent what is requested for the coming submission, the project engineer should advise the engineering manager of the schedule impact and recommend appropriate action. The project engineer should then advise the design consultant of the submission discrepancies and indicate that corrective action be taken to maintain the design schedule.
• Review process - A distribution list should be prepared and used for providing copies of drawings and specifications for grantee and consultant reviews at the 30, 60, and 90 percent levels. Table 4-1 portrays a typical distribution list. The project engineer should conduct an audit against the contract scope of work. The scopes of work for a design project should specify the documents, drawings, and specifications that are to be submitted at each design review level and the extent of completion of each.
• Review of drawings - Design reviews should strive to ensure that the grantee concepts and criteria are followed and should evaluate the adequacy of the design and drafting for the level of completion, clarity, economy, and format. Reviews should also determine whether the interfaces with adjacent and overlapping projects have been resolved. Reviews should not be a forum for arguing the designers' choice. Although there is more than one way to develop a design, the review should address only whether the design is complete, constructible, cost-effective, and in compliance with established standards and variances granted to the design consultant.
• Review of specifications - Copies of the specifications appropriate for the level should be transmitted through the task leaders to the reviewers for technical review and comment.
• Review comments - The comments developed during a review of drawings, specifications, cost estimates, calculations, survey notes, and related items should be transmitted to the project engineer for consolidation, verification, review, and action. A standard form should be developed for the use of all reviewers.
• Review meeting - The purpose of the review meeting is to examine the pertinent review comments with the design consultant to ensure that the design's shortcomings are understood, the necessary grantee inputs are provided, and the contract documents can be satisfactorily revised and advanced to a conclusion. The review meetings should be chaired by the project engineer and attended by the contract administrator, representatives of the tasks who provided review comments, systems planning personnel, and the consultant's designers representing the appropriate disciplines. Important to a project's ultimate success is the involvement of those grantee departments that will have responsibility for the construction and O&M phases. Comments should be summarized by the project engineer and transmitted to the design consultant immediately after they are summarized.

Table 4-1. Typical 30, 60, and 90 Percent Design Submission Distribution

• Dispensation of review comments - A method should be devised by which actions taken by the engineer or design consultant in response to review comments are documented, and a record of those actions are provided to the original reviewer in order to "close the loop." Many grantees have implemented internet based tracking database systems that allow a consolidated review of all resolved and outstanding comments to facilitate managing the design review process.

PE Phase Design Reviews

As a minimum, the following submittals/reviews should be accomplished:

• In-Progress Preliminary Submittal - This PE submittal is intended to facilitate an organizational review of the recommended approach, including evaluation of the rejected alternatives. As such, all factors affecting the recommendation must be addressed in the plans and/or design report.
  
  Major utility conflicts (i.e., any conflict influencing project location or having cost and/or schedule impact) must be identified. Affected parties, including utility owners, railroads, government agencies, and private owners, should be listed. Deviations from the conceptual plans should be justified. Attempts to mitigate impacts discussed in the DEIS must be stated and physical constraints on the project location should be identified. Economic comparison of discarded alternatives should be made.
• PE Submittal (30-Percent Review) - This review is the last in the PE Phase and is meant to demonstrate that the approach to all major design concepts and features has been resolved and that Final Design can proceed without delay. This submittal marks the division between PE and Final Design. As such, it should:
  • Define the impact of construction on all affected parties including utilities, railroads, governmental agencies, commercial properties, and residential areas. This should include an assessment of the effect of project labor requirements and construction work schedules on other construction work in the area.
  • Serve as a permanent record of design development and reflect the basic concurrence of all parties.
  • Define the scope of work for detailed design of the project.
  • Provide a satisfactory basis for a realistic estimate of the cost of construction, which will serve as a budget.
  • Establish the project scope, or limits, with respect to ROW.
    
    Separate requirements should be established for the submittals of the various disciplines (e.g., civil, structural, electrical, mechanical, and architectural design). The design report is part of the documentation of PE and as such should address and record the justification for, and analysis of, design requirements. Outline specifications and a preliminary construction cost estimate should be prepared by the design group. If an incompatibility with the budget exists and cannot be solved by application of VE, then packaging by the priority lists, if any, established in the pre-design phase should be applied, or the original budget should be revised.

Final Design Phase Design Reviews

Two major categories of design reviews occur in the Final Design Phase. These are typically referred to as 60-percent review and 90-percent review, although the exact percent complete could vary depending on the nature of the project. The final verification and delivery follow the 90-percent review. The scope of these reviews is presented as follows:

• 60-Percent Review - The purpose of the intermediate review is to ensure that all major features of design are progressing in accordance with prior direction, major engineering decisions have been made, and most drawings, specifications, and other documents are well advanced. The cost estimate should be checked against the budget established for the project and any cost problems resolved before proceeding to the next stage.
• 90-Percent Review - The drawings and specifications are to be completed and checked. Only incorporation of comments arising from this review, plus sign-off and approval should be required to complete the documents. A very extensive review is, therefore, necessary at this level since it is the last design review. The cost estimate should also be verified against the budget established for this project.
• Final Verification - After delivery of all completed, signed, original drawings, those making review comments should verify or backcheck that previous comments have been satisfactorily resolved, cost estimates are in line with budgets, and organizational or individual approvals can be given. Final delivery and acceptance of the completed documents is not to be considered as an opportunity for conducting another design review. Further review comments at this point should be construed as a failure on the part of the reviewer to conduct a proper review with the 90-percent submission. Also, further comments that do not pertain to the 90-percent review should not be considered unless the design is in error because of an unsafe condition, non-constructability of work as shown or new work that was not previously shown. Comments made on this submission must be carefully evaluated by the reviewer and the project engineer to gauge their necessity.

4.6.4 Constructability Reviews

Constructability reviews are highly recommended. They should be conducted as part of the 30 and 60 percent design reviews conducted during PE and Final Design. The purpose of constructability reviews is to:

• Eliminate construction requirements that are impossible or impractical to build.
• Maximize constructability, recognizing the availability and suitability of materials, the capability of labor resources, and the standards of practice of the construction resources.
• Verify accurate depictions of site conditions with regard to access, utilities, and general configuration.
• Ensure adaptation of designed structures and features to site conditions and constraints.
• Determine adequacy of work and storage space including contractor access to the site.
• Determine appropriate construction durations and milestones.
• Verify requirements for QA/QC.
• Clearly define procedures for scheduling outages and the feasibility of utility interruptions.
• Determine requirements for grantee-provided materials, equipment, services, and utility connections.
• Assure that designs can be constructed using methods, materials, and equipment common to the construction industry.
• Ensure attention to the requirements of the public including adjacent land use functions, existing transit patrons, and persons with disabilities.
• Ensure coordination with operating elements of the existing transit system, if any.

4.6.5 Peer Reviews

Peer Reviews and VE (discussed in detail in the next section) can be used to provide an independent critique of the products of the Design Phase. The focus of VE, however, should be in the PE Phase when the benefits tend to be the greatest, since design concepts have not been fully developed and engineered. Peer Review may be an appropriate vehicle for specialized independent input to the grantee on issues that present unique problems or when an outside critique is desired.

FTA encourages the grantee to confer with other transit operations and maintenance experts in order to benefit from their experiences. It has been used to review rail extensions, new start projects and the planning of a system of bus facilities. It has provided an in-depth critique of rail system designs at the preliminary and final engineering stages, provided operations and maintenance information with respect to a variety of rail subsystems, and validated the process used by a grantees' planning staff to site bus facilities. The purpose of peer review is to improve the performance of the process or product being reviewed. Basically, the question is "can we do this better?" Although the grantee is encouraged to conduct peer review with all capital projects, in some instances FTA may require it.

To ensure that bus facilities are effectively designed to enhance bus operations, a review of plans at the completion of PE will be conducted utilizing the expertise of transit operator peers who provide service under similar circumstances. Peer Review is a separate step in the design process that can add an external perspective to enhance the quality of design, construction and operation. FTA requires this Peer Review process for projects funded under the Section 5309 discretionary program, and strongly recommends it for bus facilities funded under other programs.

4.6.6 Value Engineering

4.6.6.1 Definition and Requirements of Value Engineering

FTA defines the concept of VE in the Grant Management Guidelines [Ref. 8] as follows:

Value Engineering (VE) is a systematic, multi-disciplined approach designed to optimize the value of each dollar spent. To accomplish this goal, an independent team of architects/engineers identifies, analyzes, and establishes a value for a function of an item or system. The objective of VE is to satisfy the required function at the lowest total cost (capital, operating, and maintenance) over the life of a project consistent with the requirements of performance, reliability, maintainability, safety and esthetics.

FTA encourages the use of VE techniques on all construction projects and requires it on MCPs. FTA sponsored a study that produced the following report that is a source of guidance on VE:

Value Engineering Process Overview [Ref. 53].

4.6.6.2 Timing of Value Engineering Studies

The highest return on the VE effort can be expected when a VE workshop (or study) is performed early in the design process before major decisions have been completely incorporated into the design. VE on a project should be performed at or near the end of PE.

For some large, complex projects, it may be advantageous to conduct two VE workshops. The first VE study should be conducted at the 10 percent level with the second VE study conducted at the 30 percent level of completion.

4.6.6.3 The Value Engineering Workshop Team

VE should be performed during a week long workshop by a multi-disciplined team of professionals specifically assembled for that purpose and not part of the design team. Personnel can include electrical, mechanical, civil/structural, and construction engineers, as well as specialists in architecture, cost estimation, construction management, and transit O&M. Most, if not all, of the participants should have a minimum of 40 hours of VE training and experience in VE workshops, so that efficient use is made of the time allowed for the study. The team leader should be a certified Value Engineering Specialist.

4.6.6.4 The Value Engineering Workshop

The VE workshop should consist of five phases:

• Information Phase - Obtain project information including design drawings, specifications, cost estimates, design criteria, imposed constraints, site conditions, utilities available, utility rates, and operation and maintenance practices. Receive a presentation by the designers on the progress made to date and visit the site. Review and validate cost information, calculate life cycle costs, and construct a cost model. Define the functions of the project, identify the cost and worth of each function, and determine areas of high cost and low worth.
• Speculation (or Creative) Phase - Generate a list of alternative methods of performing the functions involved in the targeted areas of the design.
• Analysis Phase - Evaluate each of the generated ideas against both functional requirements and cost-reduction objective, as well as for feasibility and potential for acceptance by the grantee. The less promising alternatives are screened out leaving a small number to develop into full-fledged proposals.
• Development Phase - Develop a revised design for each proposed change. After a sketch is drawn up, estimate the life cycle costs for both the original and proposed design, and list the advantages and disadvantages. Consultations should be held with grantee and design firm personnel to ensure that the proposed changes are based on the best information available.
• Presentation Phase - At the end of the workshop, the VE team meets with designated members of the grantee and design consultants to present the design and cost details of the recommended alternatives. Written copies of all proposals are furnished for preliminary review by the grantee and its consultants.

Within two weeks of the workshop, the VE consultant submits a draft VE Workshop Report to the grantee. This report should include the project background and description, the scope and methodology of the analyses, a summary of the VE Workshop recommendations, details of each proposal with estimated costs, expected savings, and back-up documentation.

After timely final decisions have been made by the grantee on adoptions and rejection of the various proposals, the final VE report is prepared. The grantee should consider reimbursing the project A&E for additional costs resulting from design enhancements due to VE. This would encourage the A&E to accept the VE team recommendations. The Final Report should include a summary of accepted proposals with revised capital and implementation costs, as well as a list of rejected proposals and the reasons for their rejection. FTA may request an annual VE report that tracks the progress of VE efforts as the project moves forward.

The following Lesson Learned is a good example of the type of technique that could be justified through a VE analysis that considers the life cycle cost and benefits.

4.6.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control in Design

The QA program for design is encompassed in the general guidance on QA/QC presented in Section 3.7, which follows FTA's Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines [Ref. 47]. The design document submittal, review meetings, and change control procedures described in Section 4.6.3, ensure that project requirements will be met before continuing with subsequent tasks. The QA/QC process includes all of the activities to ensure that design requirements are understood, the design interfaces are coordinated, design verification activities and reviews occur, and design changes are controlled and documented. As mentioned previously, any deviations from the configuration baseline should be justified in writing. The design calculations included in design submittals should be checked along with the drawings and specifications. Additional guidance on QA in the design process is available in:

Quality in the Constructed Project [Ref. 54].