Driving results through alternative delivery

MaineDOT's evolution offers a model of smart, flexible and collaborative project execution

By Todd Pelletier, PE, Director, Bureau of Project Development, Deputy Chief Engineer, Maine Department of Transportation

MaineDOT has built a long-standing reputation as a pioneer in alternative delivery. Since 1997, we have implemented various methods to enhance risk mitigation, integrate construction expertise earlier, and respond to increasingly complex funding, scheduling and stakeholder needs. For us, alternative delivery – when matched with the right project – has enhanced coordination, clarity and collaboration across MaineDOT and the contracting community, leading to better results for our transportation system.

Evaluating design-build’s place in our toolkit

Our shift toward alternative delivery was driven by the desire for stronger integration between designer and contractor, improved constructability with reduced risk and the need to meet federal obligation deadlines.

We began using design-build, and as our experience with it grew, we quickly learned which types of projects were best suited for the method. New location highways proved to be a strong fit, as we could provide a defined 200-foot right-of-way and allow teams to advance efficiently. Many bridge projects also aligned well with design‑build, particularly when the footprint was clearly established and there was room for innovation. Design-build has also delivered great value on larger projects that require accelerated schedules — especially those tied to federal grant deadlines, such as the I‑95 Hampden Bridge Bundle, which replaced eight aging bridges and rehabilitated a ninth along a 4‑mile stretch of I-95 in Hampden, Maine.

Those insights reinforced the importance of being selective — using design‑build where it clearly adds value and stepping back when conditions suggest a different approach. Carefully evaluating design‑build’s applicability ensures we achieve the benefits of speed, integration and schedule certainty, without shifting unmanageable risk to the contractor.

Establishing expertise and governance

Over time, it has become clear that success depends not just on choosing the right method, but on preparing our people and processes to use alternative delivery methods effectively. For our first several design-build projects, we formed a dedicated project team to guide the work. They served as a proving ground for learning the method, refining our contract language and building internal confidence.

When alternative delivery began to take hold more broadly, we made a structural shift and created what we called a centralized design‑build team. They drafted, refined and standardized our alternative delivery contract language and identified and leveraged lessons from each project to inform the next procurement. That iterative process created a consistent model that served us well for years and ultimately allowed alternative delivery to transition back into our broader project teams with a much stronger foundation.

Another best practice is our Quality Using Innovative Contracting (QUIC) team. QUIC is a standing group of senior managers and representatives from across our department. They review active projects, resolve emerging issues and oversee updates to contract language and requests for proposals. The QUIC team has become both our internal quality checkpoint and the administrative backbone of our program. By centralizing this oversight, we free our project teams to focus on delivery while ensuring that our practices, documents and decisions stay aligned across the bureau.

This structure — starting with specialized alternative‑delivery expertise, intentionally expanding that capability into organization‑wide fluency as the program matured, and supporting it with a standing, cross‑disciplinary governance body — has been one of the most impactful steps we’ve taken to ensure consistent, high‑quality alternative delivery.

Creating a decision matrix

When we consider alternative delivery today, no project in our work plan receives a potential alternative delivery label unless it crosses jurisdictions, spans a major waterway or involves unusual engineering complexity. In those rare cases, we may flag it immediately so we can shape the scope and risk allocation accordingly. We evaluate all other projects based on a four-factor decision matrix:

• Cost. We reserve alternative delivery for projects large or complex enough to benefit from it. Most of them range from $30 million to $50 million.
• Scope. We have found that projects with a clearly defined footprint, limited external dependencies and minimal risk of scope creep are best suited for alternative delivery.
• Market interest. We evaluate contractor capacity, geographic reach and consultant interest before assigning an alternative delivery method. Design-build project bundles help on this front by packaging enough work to justify mobilization and reduce overhead for bidders.
• Risk. When a project involves tight access, significant traffic impacts or complex staging, we consider delivery methods that bring contractors in earlier, such as contractor-in-design for the Madawaska-Edmundston International Bridge project and construction manager/general contractor for the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge replacement.

When cost, scope, market interest and risk align, alternative delivery becomes a powerful tool. When they don’t, we don’t force it. Our goal is always to choose the method — whether traditional or innovative delivery — that reduces risk, enhances value and minimizes disruption for the people who rely on Maine’s transportation system every day.

Evolving with purpose

Alternative delivery has strengthened our planning, sharpened our communication and deepened our collaboration inside the DOT and with the contracting community, allowing us to deliver better outcomes for the people of Maine.

For those reasons, we will continue to explore ways that alternative delivery can support our projects. In fact, we have expanded alternative delivery to our multimodal world, including ferry terminals and vessel infrastructure projects that carry their own unique complexities but benefit from the same early collaboration and risk‑reduction strategies that have served us well in the highway and bridge programs.

As our projects evolve, our communities grow and our infrastructure needs become more interconnected, alternative delivery will remain one of the most important tools we have to deliver the right project, the right way, at the right time.