In best-value procurement, current practice shows that cost is frequently more influential than noncost factors, and consequently, the lowest bidder is chosen in most cases; thus, a best-value selection is not achieved. Design-builders cannot offer the best value in their proposals if evaluation criteria do not show precisely what constitutes best value and how best value is scored. Thus, the aim of this research is twofold: first, to identify how highway agencies articulate evaluation criteria and, second, to propose a structured approach that enhances current practice on writing evaluation criteria. Through the lens of decision analysis, the researchers conducted a content analysis on 540 evaluation criteria included in 98 requests for proposal (RFPs) from 21 states across the United States. The study showed that 43% of evaluation criteria were generic, 53% used a generic constructed scale, and 4% assigned points or levels directly. These three groups represent different levels of specificity in writing evaluation criteria. Building upon these levels and on decision analysis theory principles, this research proposes a structured approach to support highway agencies in the process of crafting evaluation criteria. More precise and specific evaluation criteria will enhance the proposals’ ability to offer the best value, which, in turn, will enhance the best-value selection process as a whole.

United States highway agencies use best-value procurement with a fixed price to select design builders. This method enables public agencies to choose the best proposer by assessing several factors in addition to price. Theoretically, considering cost and noncost factors in the selection enhances the probability of selecting the proposer that provides the best value for each dollar spent. However, bidding results from the last 15 years show that 80% of best-value procurements are awarded the proposer with the lowest bid. The selection seems thus to be biased toward price. This research explores the balance between cost and noncost components in best-value procurement by identifying how weights and scores influence the selection. This analysis aims to determine the ranges of weights that better balance cost and noncost factors in the weighted-criteria best-value procurement. This study characterized a first-of-a-kind data set of 882 noncost scores and 1,158 cost scores from 347 best-value highway projects. The study applied simulation to the weighted-criteria award algorithm to explore the balance between cost and noncost factors and derive recommendations about making noncost factors more influential. The results show that a weight of cost higher or equal to 57% will result in the lowest price selection. Highway agencies should be aware of how weights and scores impact the best-value selection to align these elements with their selection objectives.

Traditional design–bid–build guidelines suggest that engineering estimates should be within $+/-10\%$ of the lowest contractor bid and recommend this value as a reference to identify anomalies in the bidding process. This guidance, however, neglects delivery approaches such as design–build (D–B). This research examines 305 D–B highway projects procured using best-value and identifies the underlying reasons for bid dispersion and cost estimates inaccuracies. This study found an average bid dispersion of 27%, suggesting that a larger threshold (i.e., 25%) is needed to account for the inherent variability of D–B projects. This study also found that engineering estimates are on average 2% more than the awarded price. This result contradicts findings in existing literature and suggests that current practice in D–B best-value may be more conservative than other procurement methods. The study explores four potential reasons for bid dispersion and engineering estimate inaccuracies and suggests strategies for improvement. By providing a better understanding of bid dispersion and engineering estimate accuracy, this study will ultimately assist in the development of new policies and processes for D–B best-value projects.

Delays during the development of infrastructure projects are a common phenomenon that implies a lack of efficiency in using taxpayers’ money. Several studies were conducted to investigate the causes of these delays. However, they did not explore the reasons for the delays in each project phase. This research presents the results of a systematic literature review to identify the primary causes of delay in the phases of design, procurement, and construction of infrastructure projects. Thirty-seven (37) relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and 2024 were selected and analyzed using a four-step process comprised of structured literature review, descriptive statistical analysis, content analysis, and reasons categorization. The study revealed that 80% of the reasons occur in the construction phase, while 20% are associated with the design and procurement phases. Identifying the reasons for the delay within each phase may aid public owners, design firms, and construction firms in developing specific measures to mitigate the delays in each phase.

Best value has been used for more than two decades in the procurement of design-build highway projects in the United States. The question of whether this type of procurement selects best-value proposers has been raised by several authors. Considering procurement data from 128 projects procured between 2000 and 2022, this chapter aims to provide insights on the impact that different types of best-value award algorithms have in the selection of design-builders as well as answers to the question of whether or not best-value procurement is actually selecting the best-value proposers. Ultimately, the chapter will reflect on lessons learned that might help highway administrators plan to use or use the best value in procuring highway projects.

Sponsored by the Committee on Developing Leaders