A Comparison of Department of Transportation Progress Scheduling Specifications from across the Nation
Publication: Construction Research Congress 2024
ABSTRACT
One of the primary determinants of project success is completion of the project on, or ahead of, schedule. Owners are constantly concerned about schedule progress and project completion. Departments of transportation (DOTs) are not an exception to this behavior. DOTs each have their own specification requirements. A comparison of the specification requirements, including definition, float ownership, software, differentiation of project levels/complexity, progress narratives, preliminary schedules, schedule updates, review and resubmit durations, and “as-built” schedule development, reveals areas of consistency and differences between states. Through this comparison, researchers can support DOTs in developing specifications that support the DOT mission while not being burdensome to project management and the contracting industry. Preliminary findings indicate the requirements for proprietary scheduling software (e.g., P6) and the use of cost-loaded critical path method (CPM) schedules for payment purposes are potential sources of conflict between the contracting community and DOTs.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
REFERENCES
ALDOT (Alabama DOT). (2022). Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, Alabama DOT, Montgomery, AL.
CalTrans (Califorina DOT). (2018). Standard Specifications, California DOT, Sacramento, CA.
CDOT (Colorado DOT). (2021). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Colorado DOT, Denver, CO.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2002). FHWA Guide for Construction Contract Time Determination Procedures, FHWA, [www] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/t508015.cfm., visited May 16, 2023.
Gi Han, B., Son, J., Khwaja, N., and O’Brien, W. J. (2022). “Developing Assessment Criteria for State DOTs’ Standard Specifications on Contractor Schedules,” Construction Research Congress 2022, ASCE, doi.org/10.1061/9780784483978.042.
Hildreth, J. C. (2006). Schedule Submittal Requirements, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
Iowa DOT. (2018). Standard Specifications Section 1110. Progress Scheduling, Iowa DOT, Ames, IA.
ITD (Idaho Transportation Department). (2018). Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, ITD, Boise, ID.
NJDOT (New Jersey DOT). (2019). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, NJDOT, Trenton, NJ.
Ohio DOT. (2019). Construction and Material Specifications, Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
TDOT (Tennessee DOT). (2021). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, TDO, Nashville, TN.
TxDOT (Texas DOT). (2018). Contract Time Determination, TxDOT, [www] https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpd/project-portfolio/contract-time-determination-guidance.pdf, visited May 16, 2023.
UDOT (Utah DOT). (2022). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, UDOT, Salt Lake City, UT.
VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation). (2018). Project Tasks and Scheduling Guide, VDOT, [www] https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/project_tasks_and_scheduling.pdf, visited May 16, 2023.
VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation). (2020). Road and Bridge Specifications, VDOT, Richmond, VA.
WisDOT (Wisconsin Department of Transportation). (2023). Facilities Development Manual. WisDOT, [www] https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-02-20.pdf, visited May 16, 2023.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Construction Research Congress 2024
Pages: 292 - 298
History
Published online: Mar 18, 2024
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.