(a)

1. (1) The typical DB-B process of the Arkansas Department of Transportation involves a design approval decision point that is not incorporated into the D-B process.
2. (2) When awarding the D-B contract, the department is acknowledging the basics of the D-B design approach and, as such, is accepting the design concepts of the design-builder presented in the proposal.
3. (3) The post-selection final design process by the design-builder will move forward from the design concepts presented in the proposal, therefore, an early acceptance of design is inherent in the selection process.

(b)

1. (1) The details and requirements necessary for the department approval of design must be included in the RFP.
2. (2) The acceptance of the proposal authorizes the performance of the final design and production of the final plans and specifications once the appropriate notice to proceed (NTP) is issued by the department.
3. (3) In a D-B process, the risk inherent to the design is accepted by the design-builder and the PRT review should be limited to the determination of whether the final design meets the intent and requirements of the DBA as stipulated in the RFP.
4. (4) Language in the RFP should protect the concepts presented in the proposal from significant changes after the DBA is executed through final design or the construction process without the approval of the department.

(c)

1. (1) A proposal element that meets the DBA requirements but does not meet what the department intended would require a change to the DBA initiated by the department.
2. (2) Should the design-builder include an element or modify a significant facet of the project after the submission of the proposal without the prior authorization of the department, a modification to the DBA would be required to authorize the modification, otherwise the design-builder must remove the element from the final design and construction.

(d)

1. (1) In a D-B process, there is normally no predefined schedule for the department reviews, but the timeframe allowed and the requirements of both contractor and the department should be established in the RFP and DBA.
2. (2) The design schedule, including department reviews, will be determined and provided by the design-builder, with department concurrence, after the DBA is awarded but generally prior to issuance of the NTP, as the design-builder will be ready to begin the actual final design as soon as the NTP has been received.

(f)

1. (1) PRT design reviews can take numerous forms, ranging from over-the-shoulder (OTS) meetings to more formal review and comment periods.
2. (2) It is important for the PD to involve the district engineer and his or her staff in the PRT design reviews as needed to identify constructability, maintenance, and operational issues that may arise while the design is being developed.

(g)

1. (1) In a D-B process, the department and the design-builder both warrant something to each other.
2. (2) The department should warrant that the project design criteria (PDC) and project limits meet the requirements for the project but not warrant the applicability of the design.
3. (3) The design-builder warrants that the final design and the constructed product will meet the intended product required by the DBA as stipulated in the RFP.
4. (4) For these reasons, the PRT should provide only comments related to nonconforming design elements not meeting the DBA requirements during any of the design reviews.
5. (5) Any comments outside of the type described will be considered preferential comments and should be provided only for the consideration of the design-builder.
6. (6) The decision to incorporate any of the comments of a preferential nature resides with the design-builder.
7. (7) The PRT should develop a protocol to delineate the required and preferred types of review comments to be returned and reduce the volume of comments provided to the design-builder.

(h)

1. (1) The department’s constructability and maintenance reviews occur simultaneously in the normal DB-B process.
2. (2) In the D-B process, constructability becomes the responsibility of the design-builder as the designer and constructor are combined on the same team.

3. (3)

   1. (A) The department carries no liability for whether a design is constructible.
   2. (B) However, the department has a vested interest in the design-life of an element and the ability to maintain the element throughout its design-life.
4. (4) Since the issue of whether an element meets the requirements of the department for long-term maintenance is still a relevant issue in the D-B process, it must be considered in the preparation of the RFP.
5. (5) Any additional design modifications required to be incorporated into the final design for department maintenance concerns identified during a design review not detailed in the RFP will likely result in a modification to the DBA initiated by the design-builder.
6. (6) Due to the repetitious nature of certain transportation details throughout a project, the impact of a minor post-RFP modification of this type can result in a considerable cost increase to the project.