BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 294|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 294
Author: Portantino (D)
Amended: 8/31/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM : 7-0, 06/21/11
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Huff, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Rubio,
Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 08/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Runner, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 05/31/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Design-sequencing contracts
SOURCE : Professional Engineers in California Government
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to enter into design-sequencing
contracts until January 1, 2015.
ANALYSIS : Design-sequencing is a method of contracting
that enables the sequencing of design activities to permit
each construction phase to commence when design for that
phase is complete, instead of requiring design for the
entire project to be completed before commencing
construction, as is the case with the traditional
CONTINUED
AB 294
Page
2
design-bid-build method of contracting. Design-sequencing
is different from design-build, the latter of which entails
the contracting of both the design and construction to a
single entity. With design-sequencing, Caltrans retains
responsibility for design but is able to award a
construction contract prior to completing the design for
the entire project. Under current law, a transportation
agency may award a construction contract when the design is
at least 30 percent complete.
AB 405 (Knox), Chapter 378, Statutes of 1999, established
the Design-Sequencing Demonstration and Evaluation Program,
which authorized Caltrans to use design-sequencing for no
more than six transportation projects. One year later, AB
2607 (Knox), Chapter 340, Statutes of 2000, was enacted to
increase the number of projects to twelve. The projects
initiated by the two Knox bills are referred to as Phase I.
The demonstration program was terminated on January 1,
2005. In 2004, SB 1210 (Torlakson), Chapter795,
established Phase 2 of the demonstration program,
authorizing 12 more projects. This authority expired on
January 1, 2010.
Under these bills, Caltrans is required to provide to the
Legislature annual status reports that include information
on the procedures, costs, and delivery schedules of the
projects for which it used design-sequencing. In addition,
Caltrans is required to establish a peer review committee
to evaluate the outcomes of design-sequencing projects for
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the demonstration program. The
peer review committee is required to prepare a report for
submittal to the Legislature that presents its findings and
discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the
contracting method more fully after all of the projects are
completed.
This bill:
1.Continues the design-sequencing program until it
terminates on January 1, 2015.
2.Authorizes the Caltrans director to establish criteria
for selecting projects to be constructed by the
design-sequencing method and to enter into no more than
AB 294
Page
3
five design-sequencing projects by January 1, 2015.
3.Defines design-sequencing as a method of contracting that
permits the construction phase of a project to commence
before the entire project is designed and defines a
design-sequencing contract as a contract between Caltrans
and a contractor that executes a design-sequencing
project.
4.Requires Caltrans to use its own employees or contract
with consulting engineering firms to perform all project
development services, preparation of documents, and
construction inspection services. The cost of design
services for design sequencing shall be accounted in
Caltrans capital outlay support budget.
5.Establishes criteria governing the advertisement and
award of design-sequencing contracts, including the
restriction that Caltrans may use design-sequencing only
on projects that are deemed to have a high-probability of
success, meaning that using design-sequencing will
shorten a project's schedule or reduce its cost, or will
assist in securing state or federal funds.
6.Requires Caltrans to compile data on the status of
design-sequencing projects until all projects are
completed, and make this information available on its
public Internet web site.
Comments
Performance of the Design-Sequencing Program . In the
annual report on the status of the design-sequencing
program issued last January, Caltrans reported ten projects
were included in the Phase I program. (Two projects could
not be made ready before the program terminated on January
1, 2005). A preliminary analysis of all completed projects
shows a minimal time savings. The ten completed Phase I
projects represent $872 million in capital construction
costs. When compared to the original delivery schedules,
the time difference on completed projects has ranged from
14 months delay to 18 months savings. Some of the project
delays were not attributable to the use of
design-sequencing and would likely have occurred using
AB 294
Page
4
traditional delivery methods. The most common delays
caused by design-sequencing were late delivery of
subsequent sequence packages and missing information on
delivery packages.
On the basis of the lessons learned in Phase I, Caltrans
has limited the number of projects for Phase II to eight.
One project was completed one month earlier than
forecasted. The remaining seven projects are in various
stages of construction. Caltrans is estimating the projects
will be completed between seven and twenty months earlier
than expected.
It should be recognized that there is a substantial time
delay between the enactment of the authorizing legislation
and project completion. Projects authorized in 1999
legislation were not completed as late as 2009. Moreover,
not all delays in meeting expectation are the result of
design delays or poor performance by the contract. For
example, a high-occupancy vehicle lane project on US-l 0 I
in Sonoma County was completed in April 2009, with one
month time savings. Caltrans expected a twelve months'
time savings with this project. In fact, only a one month
savings was achieved. The eleven months lost from this
project's expected schedule was due to funding issues not
attributable to design-sequencing. Seven months were lost
before advertising due to a funding shortfall and another
four months were lost after bid opening due to the need for
a supplemental vote by the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) because the bids came in higher than the
amount the CTC had earlier approved. The funding shortfall
was related to the uncontrollable material price escalation
during the 2005 period.
This bill will allow Caltrans to further refine the
design-sequencing program.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
AB 294
Page
5
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Project delivery impactunknown costs related to using
design- Special*
sequencing rather than
design-bid-build,
potentially offset by savings from
accelerated
schedule (see staff comments)
*State Highway Account
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/11)
Professional Engineers in California Government (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
since the expiration of the design-sequencing program in
January of 2010, Caltrans has had one fewer option to
effectively deliver projects in a timely and efficient
manner. This bill reinstates the design-sequencing pilot
program for an additional four-years in order that
Caltrans, at its discretion, may utilize this project
delivery tool for up to five additional projects.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 05/31/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell
AB 294
Page
6
JJA:nl 8/31/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****