Indiana isn't sure, so they are planning a program of pilot projects of various sizes and other parameters (location within the state, bridge vs. road) to determine for themselves where D-B will be best suited for them & their contracting community. About the only parameter that is fixed at this point is right of way, and they do not do D-B if ROW is required.

David, If Indiana DOT is not using design-build if ROW is required, are most of the pilot projects are 3R/4R within existing ROW?

So far all projects have been able to work within the ROW without significant design exceptions. I believe that INDOT is planning to tackle a D-B project in the next year or so that requires ROW as part of the pilot I mentioned.

On past design-build projects in Arizona, ADOT has cleared additional ROW in advance of advertising the project based on the environmental documents. ADOT includes in their design-build contracts a ROW clause requiring the contractor to make first attempt to obtain additional ROW resulting from their design. If the contractor is unsuccessful, than ADOT will aid in obtaining the necessary ROW. However, in reviewing the past history, there are no cases where additional ROW was needed.

Under FHWA SEP-14 program, approximately 24 State DOTs and a handful of local public agencies have evaluated various types of design-build projects. These range from simple resurfacing and bridge replacement projects, to ITS projects, to ferry boats and even mega transportation projects such as the I-15 reconstruction in Utah or the joint highway-transit Southeast Corridor project in Denver. Based on the 150 design-build projects initiated under SEP-14, approximately 85% of these are not large enough to be considered as "qualified projects" ($50 million traditional/ $5 million ITS). FHWA expects that this trend will continue under the DB Finale Rule. Nationally, DB is perceived to be used for large complex projects but the current data supports that medium to small projects are the vast majority (85%).