<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Successful Applications of Alternative Delivery Methods by Highway Agencies to Accelerate Project Delivery</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2681234</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Recent studies indicate that alternative project delivery methods—particularly design-build (DB), progressive design-build (PDB), public-private partnerships (P3s), and progressive P3s—can accelerate project development and delivery. However, adoption across State DOTs remains uneven. Some agencies have strong internal capacity, established procurement practices, and enabling legal frameworks to use these approaches effectively, while others continue to rely primarily on design-bid-build. As a result, many agencies are not realizing the full potential benefits of accelerated delivery.

This scan will assess how leading states have implemented alternative delivery models, the policies and laws that enabled their use, and lessons that may be transferable to other DOTs seeking to shorten delivery timelines. Areas of examination include: (1) criteria agencies use to select delivery models for major projects; (2) the role of enabling legislation and institutional frameworks in shaping delivery options; (3) cost and schedule performance comparisons across DB, PDB, P3, and design-bid-build; (4) stakeholder management, institutional considerations, and public communication practices; (5) risk allocation and risk-sharing approaches between public and private partners; and (6) use of innovative financing to improve project viability when paired with alternative delivery.

The scan will also examine decision-making processes, including leadership evaluation of delivery options, the influence of institutional and technical considerations, accountability mechanisms, internal capability development, procurement practices, and the integration of lifecycle cost considerations. Barriers to broader adoption—such as limited authority, staffing constraints, and concerns regarding cost overruns and accountability—will also be documented.

This scan will identify lessons learned, best practices, and decision frameworks for implementing accelerated delivery models. It will document how selected agencies evaluate delivery options, structure procurements, build internal capacity, and engage stakeholders to support successful outcomes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:10:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2681234</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic  57-12. Practices for Incentivizing Contractor Performance for Progressive-Design-Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Highway Projects</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630479</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation (DOTs) have developed a variety of approaches to incentivize contractors for progressive-design-build (PDB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) highway projects. Incentives for these procurement types encourage contractors to proactively address risks, innovate, and develop accurate estimates. Examples include financial incentives, collaborative workshops, early engagement, and public reporting. The goal is to ensure that contractors remain motivated to optimize the schedule and reduce costs, ultimately leading to successful project outcomes.

The objective of this synthesis is to document state DOT practices related to incentivizing contractor performance for PDB and CM/GC highway projects. The synthesis will encompass incentive and disincentive strategies used throughout the life of a project to enhance contractor performance.

Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to): Financial incentives and disincentives tied to performance metrics; Practices to incentivize contractor identification of risk (e.g., collaborative workshops); Practices to incentivize contractors to innovate; The process for development of estimates; Practices to incentivize savings on guaranteed maximum price (GMP); Procedures for development and use of contingencies and allowances; Criteria for subcontractor selection; and State DOT metrics for evaluating the success of contractor incentivization practices.

Information will be gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected DOTs for the development of case examples. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 18:32:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630479</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 57-15. Institutionalizing Innovations and their Associated Skillset from Alternative Contracting Methods</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630495</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Project delivery methods have evolved significantly in recent decades as public owners seek to accelerate schedules, reduce claims, encourage innovation, and incorporate life-cycle considerations. State departments of transportation (DOTs) increasingly use alternative contracting methods (ACMs), such as construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), design–build (DB), progressive design–build (PDB), and public–private partnerships (P3). These approaches often require closer collaboration between designers and contractors, rely on performance specifications, and provide opportunities to pilot new practices such as 3D design and building information modeling. While some states have institutionalized these innovations, practices vary and are not widely shared. A synthesis is needed to document how ACMs have supported innovation in design and construction and to identify the staffing, skills, and training needed to implement such efforts.

The objective of this synthesis is to document state DOT practices on using CM/GC, DB, and PDB project delivery methods to inform future advances and innovative design and construction practices.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 16:49:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630495</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Alternative Construction Contracting Mechanisms for Transportation Projects in the US Northeast Region</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2310161</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The primary goal of this project is to increase stakeholder education and support wider adoption of the Design Build (DB) contracting method by transportation owners in New Jersey and the Northeast region. DB has been utilized widely across the construction sector over the last 20 years, with notable benefits on schedule performance and design innovation. In the state of New Jersey, DB became available through the “Design-Build Construction Procurement Act” on April 2021.

OBJECTIVE: The intended outcome is a comprehensive report and presentation that can guide transportation agencies and bidders in New Jerseyy through the DB method, differences and challenges across states, and steps to implement and increase DB efficiency in their organizations through changes in procurement processes, stipend allocations, selection processes or request for proposal (RFP) requirements.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 19:19:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2310161</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Effective Practices for Best-Value Construction Projects</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558412</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Several state departments of transportation (DOTs) have successfully used the best-value approach to procure highway projects through design-bid-build (DBB), construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), design-build (D-B), progressive design-build (PDB), and public-private partnership (PPP) highway projects. NCHRP LRD 90: Best Value Procurement for Highway Construction: Legal Issues and Strategies describes current practices. 

However, state DOTs have limited research-based resources to assist with best-value procurements, such as how a state DOT might decide what award algorithm, evaluation criteria, weight ranges, and scoring systems to use to select the best design and construction team to achieve a project’s goals. The resources also do not link project performance metrics to procurement processes. Research is needed to identify how state DOTs could enhance their procurement processes to use best-value procurement effectively. 

The objective of this research is to develop a guide with examples that identify effective practices for best-value construction procurements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:38:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558412</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategies for Controlling Cost and Schedule Growth on Alternative Delivery Projects






</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558415</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies across the United States increasingly use alternative project delivery methods (APDMs) to deliver transportation projects, rather than the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) approach. APDMs include design-build (DB), progressive design-build, construction manager/general contractor, and public-private partnerships. Several factors are driving this trend, including the need for project cost-certainty, expediting project delivery, identifying and mitigating risks earlier in the project lifecycle, and shifting risks to or sharing risks with the parties most capable of managing them. 

Previous studies have focused on comparing the cost and schedule performance of DBB and DB projects, rather than APDMs at-large, and these studies tended to rely on small sample sizes and opinion-based data. Research is needed to better understand how to control the cost and schedule of projects utilizing APDMs from project planning through design and construction. 

The objective of this research is to provide a guide for transportation agencies on strategies to identify and manage risks that have led to cost and schedule growth on projects delivered with APDMs. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:31:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558415</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NCHRP Implementation Support Program. Agency Implementation of the Design-Build and Contract Manager/General Contractor Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2422568</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this research was to assist the state DOTs in implementing best practices for post-award contract administration of Design-Build and Contract Manager/General Contractor projects identified in the guidebooks developed in NCHRP Project 08-104: Guidebooks for Post-Award Contract Administration for Highway Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods.







Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE





















































































































































































































































































































































































































]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:09:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2422568</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2417094</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Developers of major public and private projects in the United States and elsewhere are using a variety of project delivery methods to complete those projects. In the United States, transit projects have been traditionally carried out through a design-bid-build process. There is considerable interest on the part of transportation agencies in alternative forms of project delivery and their potential benefits. However, a comprehensive discussion of the benefits and disadvantages of these methods in the context of the United States transit environment is lacking.  Furthermore, while United States transit agencies have considerable experience contracting for the operation and maintenance of facilities and services, there is a need to explore the benefits and drawbacks of linking this practice with project delivery methods (e.g. design-bid, design-bid-build, and construction manager-at-risk).  The objective of this research is to develop a guidebook to help transit agencies (1) evaluate and select the most appropriate project delivery method for major capital projects and (2) evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of including operations and maintenance as a component of a contract for the project delivery system. The project delivery methods to be discussed in the guidebook are (a) design-bid-build, (b) design-build, and (c) construction manager-at-risk. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:27:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2417094</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Decision-Making Guide to Explore the Benefits of Design-Build-Maintain (DBM) and Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) Alternative Delivery Systems to Assist GDOT in Anticipation of Emerging Technologies Deployed in GDOT's Network</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2341571</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this research is to create a guidebook for evaluating when to use Design-Build-Maintain (DBM) and Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) project delivery approaches and to develop evaluation strategies and performance metrics for observing the value-added contributions of new and emerging technology to project delivery.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:19:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2341571</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Project Delivery (Design-Build) Guidance</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2310558</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Departments of Transportation (DOTs) across the country have traditionally used a Design-Bid-Build procurement method in building highways and other transportation infrastructure improvements. The Design-Bid-Build method is when the DOT—or a consultant hired by the DOT—designs the project, after which bids from contractors are solicited, and, finally, the project is awarded to a contractor to build that project. This process encourages competitiveness among bidders; however, it often requires a high expenditure of resources and time in the DOT’s project-design phase. Further, any innovation in construction or materials for a project must be identified, defined, and included in the contractor’s bid package, which restricts flexibility to develop additional innovations after award. 
The primary objectives of this research study are to seek data to inform ADOT on DB policies and procedures for future project-delivery and legislative efforts. This research will include information from other state DOTs on their PDB and/or DB efforts, state legislative authority, standing policies, contractual documents, etc. It will also include how PBD and/or DB is implemented in other states as well as any notable practices they use when utilizing these contracting methods. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:12:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2310558</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 55-09. Open-books Pricing Practices for Construction Manager/General Contractor and Progressive Design-Build Projects</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2190461</link>
      <description><![CDATA[

The objective of this synthesis was to document state DOTs policies and procedures for developing open-books pricing practices for CMGC and PDB. Research is complete. The final report is published as Synthesis Report 653 and is available here: https://doi.org/10.17226/29084. 

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2023 19:20:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2190461</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Quality Control and Quality Assurance for Alternative Contracting Projects: Implementation Strategies and Key Lessons for KDOT</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2026346</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Delivering highway projects using alternative project delivery methods such as design-build (D-B) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) demands a shift in the traditional agency quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) programs to accommodate the faster pace of design and construction as well as the redistribution of responsibilities among project stakeholders. Alternative project delivery in highway construction often requires the application of alternative quality management systems that emphasize contractor QC and QA. These new quality management systems allow state departments of transportation (DOT) to have confidence through a verification of contractor quality system processes. They also permit DOTs to satisfy due diligence requirements for federal-aid highway projects.
Alternative project delivery methods have been used in almost all state DOTs. In 2016, Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) completed the Johnson County Gateway project using D-B delivery with non-incentivized QA specifications. In 2020, Kansas legislature has passed a 10-year transportation stimulus bill that re-authorizes KDOT to use alternative delivery methods including D-B and CM/GC. With the growth of alternative project delivery methods, managing the QC and QA program is a challenge for many state DOTs including KDOT. To address this essential need, the proposed research will identify and evaluate effective quality management systems used for alternative contracting projects. It is expected that the result of this research can be used to implement the QA and QC program for D-B and CM/GC highway construction projects in KDOT.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:03:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2026346</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guide on Progressive Design-Build for Transportation Projects</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1957099</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The most commonly used methodology for design-build (DB) contractor selection involves a best value process, with significant weight accorded to price, resulting in a fixed-price contract for design development and construction. Progressive design-build (PDB) is a recent variation that allows early contractor involvement with elements similar to a construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) approach. Similar to the process used for CM/GC, pricing negotiation occurs for final design and construction in the preliminary design phase. But unlike CM/GC, PDB continues to transfer design liability and construction responsibilities to a DB team starting with the preliminary planning and design phase through to construction completion. 

PDB contracts include procedures for development of the design, schedule/phasing plan, and a price for final design and construction typically in the form of a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), targeted maximum price (TMP), or agreed lump sum. The development of the price is a key component of PDB as it allows owners to hire a progressive designer-builder without a total price commitment for final design and construction until reasonable design details are defined. 

Currently, state departments of transportation (DOTs) are utilizing variations in terminology, differing approaches in early progressive design-build team (PDBT)/state interactions, and varying contracting mechanisms due to the limited guidance available to implement PDB on their highway projects. To help state DOTs understand the benefits offered by PDB for transportation projects, research is needed to explore how PDB can be effectively implemented on highway projects.

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for state DOTs to effectively and efficiently use PDB delivery for transportation projects that includes assistance with project planning and selection, project implementation, procurement, pricing procedures, and contract administration.   ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 19:27:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1957099</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Alternative Project Delivery Methods: Assessing and Allocating Risk to Increase Competition






</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1909952</link>
      <description><![CDATA[NCHRP Research Report 1160 presents a guide to help state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other project owners (1) integrate risk analysis into their project development processes to determine the optimal risk allocation for projects using alternative project delivery (APD) methods; and (2) incorporate risk allocation into procurement documents in a manner that attracts competition and minimizes risk premiums. The guide includes tools and techniques that owners can use to apply its methodologies and effectively manage risks post-award. The guide should be of value to project owners seeking to understand inherent risks in projects and identify ways to mitigate or manage that risk, including allocating some degree of risk to contractors.

State DOTs have increased their use of APD methods such as design-build and public-private partnerships to deliver construction projects. The assessment and assignment of financial risk to the selected contractor is a critical element in the development of a solicitation by the state DOT or other project owner. How risk is allocated and the degree to which risk is transferred from the state DOT/owner to the contractor influences potential bidders’ decisions to propose on projects and how to structure and price their proposals. APD is typically used for large construction projects, but only a limited number of engineering and construction companies can assume significant financial risk. Assigning increasing levels of financial risk to the contractor with commensurate increases in bid prices can be expected to reduce the number of competitive bids and may also attract unqualified and/or unresponsive bidders. Research was needed to develop guidelines for state DOTs/owners on how to (a) assess project risk and apportion that risk between the owner and the contractor, and (b) effectively convey risk within the procurement documents to attract responsive and competitive bids when APD is used. 

Under NCHRP Project 23-22, “Alternative Project Delivery Methods: Assessing and Allocating Risk to Increase Competition,” HKA was asked to (1) develop a methodology to identify, assess, and quantify risk within completed and active projects delivered with APD methods, integrating processes that consider the perspectives of state DOTs, other project owners, and potential bidders; and (2) produce a guide for state DOTs and other project owners on how to integrate risk analyses within their project development processes and effectively incorporate risk allocation in procurement documents. The guide was to include tools and techniques to aid end users in applying the methodology and effectively managing risk post-award. The methodology was developed with significant input from state DOTs and pertinent industry representatives in both phases of the research. 

I

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2022 18:06:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1909952</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Does Design‐Build Always Expedite Project Delivery: Insights from SCDOT’s Historical Data from the Past Decade</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1864565</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) is interested in providing research assistance to improve the Department’s current design-build delivery method for highway transportation projects. Evaluation measures for effectively selecting suitable projects for the design-build model to deliver optimal results have not been fully developed. In addition, the comparison of design-build and design-bid-build project delivery methods and how that comparison affects project selection has not been investigated.  The objective of this research is to: a) evaluate and refine SCDOT’s project selection process that determines if design-build is the most appropriate method for delivery of a project; b) identify the most effective design-build tools/processes/best practices along with how and when they are incorporated into the design-build procurement process; c) identify and develop an effective cost estimating process for design-build; and d) develop a measuring process for SCDOT to evaluate the effectiveness of design-build projects upon completion.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2021 12:33:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1864565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>