<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSJhbGwiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMCIgLz48L3BhcmFtcz48ZmlsdGVycz48ZmlsdGVyIGZpZWxkPSJpbmRleHRlcm1zIiB2YWx1ZT0iJnF1b3Q7QmlkIHByaWNlcyZxdW90OyIgb3JpZ2luYWxfdmFsdWU9IiZxdW90O0JpZCBwcmljZXMmcXVvdDsiIC8+PC9maWx0ZXJzPjxyYW5nZXMgLz48c29ydHM+PHNvcnQgZmllbGQ9InB1Ymxpc2hlZCIgb3JkZXI9ImRlc2MiIC8+PC9zb3J0cz48cGVyc2lzdHM+PHBlcnNpc3QgbmFtZT0icmFuZ2V0eXBlIiB2YWx1ZT0icHVibGlzaGVkZGF0ZSIgLz48L3BlcnNpc3RzPjwvc2VhcmNoPg==" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>GEOTECHNICAL BASELINES - PART OF THE PROBLEM OR A SOLUTION?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/539232</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to realistically bid on an underground project, a contractor must be able to answer four very significant "how questions":  (1) how will it be constructed; (2) how much will it cost; (3) how long will it take; and (4) how will he be paid. The integration and coordination of the Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) with the plans, specifications and schedule of bid items must be conducted by people who understand the contract documents and their use in construction and not be in a defensive mode for the parties who created the contract documents.  A datum or baseline is a contractual statement of parameters for soil/rock characteristics and behavior as well as stated quantities of bid unit price items.  By utilizing the schedule of bid unit prices for adjustment of datum or baseline quantities, a "fair to all parties" solution can be attained for varying conditions, within the site, that exist in all underground construction.  However, a GBR that is a litany of geotechnical horrors (LOGH) without recommendations or conclusions guarantees going to Dispute Review Board(s) or to court.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/539232</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SUBCONTRACTORS' BIDDING DECISIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/485962</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Bid decisions by subcontractors are complex because of the uncertainty about many factors affecting their outcomes.  This study was able to identify, through a questionnaire survey, many factors characterizing the bid decision-making process.  The questionnaire was mailed in August 1995 to 320 subcontractors in Colorado.  The results indicate that the contractor's credit history, habit in the issuance of periodical payments, and leadership and capability in planning and managing the project are identified as the top factors that affect a subcontractor's decision to bid for a project.  The subcontractor's previous relationship with the contractor, the contractor's capabilities, financial capacity, current work load, and specialty, and the prospect of future business relationships are the highest ranked factors affecting quotation decision.  Suggestions are advanced to subcontractors for improving their bidding decisions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 May 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/485962</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/475439</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The design-build delivery process is affecting the way design is being provided for civil infrastructure projects.  Established approaches and policies regarding design are based on the traditional design-bid-build process and need to be reviewed for those projects being delivered in a nontraditional manner.  This paper reviews these impacts and suggests guidelines for determining the appropriate amount of design needed at the bidding, pricing, and construction stages of a design-build project.  The paper also addresses concerns that designers may have regarding how the design effort may change using this delivery process as well as concerns about professional responsibility.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/475439</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SUMMARY: INFLATION GAINS A TOEHOLD</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/575245</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article summarizes the impact that inflation has had on the construction industry.  During the second quarter of 1997 inflation appeared to be having an effect on some building cost indexes.  Bituminous concrete prices are among those products involved in an inflation spiral.  New initiatives by several state highway departments are being introduced to contain costs and speed up schedules on complex jobs by moving away from the traditional low-bid concept and exploring alternative methods of project delivery.  The Florida Department of Transportation, for example, is experimenting with bid averaging.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/575245</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HIGHWAYS: STATES BID FOR INNOVATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/575246</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article discusses cost control strategies for highway contractors.  Highway contractors are dealing with double-digit price increases for asphalt and steady price increases for portland cement.  While competition is remaining steady in some areas, other states are seeing a drop in the number of bidders. Highway construction is up in some states, such as Colorado, and down in others, including California.  The Colorado Department of Transportation is experimenting with alternative project delivery systems to keep up with demand, including a design-build project.  The state of Oregon is trying a new formula for contracting selection, whereby the contractor's technical qualifications are weighted equally with the bid price, rather than the low-bid approach.  Innovations in contracting and bidding methods being considered in Florida, Maine, and Kansas are also considered.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/575246</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HOW TO DELEAD BRIDGES FOR UNDER $5/SQ.FT.</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/470839</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many bridge owners are deleading bridges by abrasive blasting for below $5/sq. ft. Examining their specifications and how contractors respond to them can offer low-cost strategies. The reasons that contractors can bid and perform at low prices are: (1) Simple lump-sum bids; (2) No pre-bid submittals; (3) Longer time frames; (4) Experienced and reasonable inspection; (5) Unrestricted access to work; (6) Areas provided for staging; (7) Reduced surface preparation; (8) Limit the steps; (9) OSHA and EPA rules not specified; (10) Containment not restricted.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/470839</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RECORD SPAN SPLICED BULB-TEE GIRDERS USED IN HIGHLAND VIEW BRIDGE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/389914</link>
      <description><![CDATA[At 250 ft, the main span of Highland View Bridge - a 2600 ft long, precast, prestressed concrete structure on U.S. 98 over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Florida - is the longest concrete girder span ever constructed in the United States. This record span was achieved with the use of continuous precast post-tensioned concrete bulb-tee girders combined with spliced drop-in girder.  This article discusses the competitive bidding, design considerations, production and construction operations, and erected cost of the bridge.  With this experience, it is expected that even longer span precast, prestressed concrete bridges will be constructed in the near future.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/389914</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPECIAL BIDDING PROCESSES FOR FREEWAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/370119</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The rapid development and technological changes inherent in Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) projects can make following traditional state bidding practices ineffective. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is procuring a freeway management system using several non-traditional contracting practices to ensure delivery of equipment for its Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS). Sole source methods, low bid methods, vendor specifications, personal services contracts, systems manager approaches, and two-step methods were examined. ADOT elected to use several techniques, each with a specific application. These contracting procedures include a two-step bidding process for a multi-million dollar construction project, requisitioning from existing statewide procurement contracts for workstation and central computer equipment, and total life cycle cost bidding for electronic, light-emitting variable message signs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 1993 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/370119</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TIME/COST BIDDING. IN: PREPARING FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY, PROCEEDINGS OF CONSTRUCTION CONGRESS '91, SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS IN COOPERATION WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MINING ENGINEERS AND THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, APRIL 13-16, 1991</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/361673</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper presents the details of a relatively new and innovative approach to determining the low bidder on highway construction contracts. In the cost and time method each bidder proposes both a time duration for the project and traditional unit prices for the work items. A Road User Cost is applied to the proposed contract times. The low bidder is determined as the proposal which provides the lowest combination of bid cost and total road user cost. This paper analyzes the data acquired from 16 case studies and the conclusions drawn from them. Using those conclusions, an innovative bidding procedure can be developed for application in public and private sectors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Feb 1992 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/361673</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BIDDING ALTERNATE BRIDGE DESIGN FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/358384</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To foster more efficient and less costly design, FHWA requires that bridge projects with an estimated cost of more than $10 million be put out to bid with at least two alternate designs, usually with one steel and one concrete design.  In addition, contractors are often allowed to prepare and bid on their own alternate designs.  This option sometimes is crucial because one of the state's alternate designs often is less efficient than the other. Innovatively using the FHWA-required alternate designs can be a difference between an average bid and the lowest bid.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/358384</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COST-TIME BIDDING CONCEPT: AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/352898</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Details are presented of a relatively new and innovative approach for determining the low bidder on highway construction contracts.  In the cost and time method, each bidder proposes both a time duration for the project and traditional unit prices for the work items.  A road user cost (RUC) is applied to the proposed contract times.  The low bidder is determined as the proposal that provides the lowest combination of bid cost and total RUC.  Several state transportation authorities have experimented with this system.  Results of these trial cases and the comments of the participants provide interesting indications as to the merits of this new system.  Data acquired from 16 case studies are analyzed.  Using the conclusions, an innovative bidding procedure is developed for application in public and private sectors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/352898</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A CASE STUDY IN NEBRASKA: COAL AND COMMON CARRIAGE IN CONFLICT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/302466</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To determine whether the economic welfare of agricultural shippers in Nebraska improved or deteriorated in response to increases in traffic density associated with coal traffic growth, cross section data for the year 1979 was used in conjunction with linear regression to test two hypotheses. Both hypotheses use country grain elevator corn bids as a measure of shipper benefits or costs.  The first hypothesis states that there is no relationship between elevator bid and the density of rail traffic on the line on which each elevator is located.  Rejection of this hypothesis would suggest that the economies or diseconomies of scale associated with density are shared with agricultural shippers.  The second hypothesis states that there is no difference in the bid-density relationship between elevators located on the Union Pacific Railroad and those located on the Burlington Northern.  Because during the late 1970's coal traffic growth on the Burlington Northern was considerably greater than on the Union Pacific, rejection of this hypothesis would suggest that coal traffic had a separate effect on the bid-density relationship.  If that separate effect were adverse, then one could infer the coal traffic did have a negative impact on some agricultural shippers.  The development and testing of these hypotheses is described in detail in this paper.  Because both hypotheses rely on the assumption that the transportation costs of agricultural shippers, whether they be the explicit costs of freight rates or the implicit costs of poor quality service, will be reflected in prices bid for grain by country elevators, the validity of this assumption should be carefully examined.  To do so, the paper opens with a discussion of the markets in which country elevators buy and sell grain.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 1989 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/302466</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO ITEM 340 OF THE 1982 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/267871</link>
      <description><![CDATA[All of the proposed changes to the SDHPT 1982 Standard Specifications should eventually result in lowered life cycle costs of increasingly better performing Item 340 hot-mix paving layers.  It is anticipated that proposed changes 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 would result in slight increases in bid item prices for asphalt cements and aggregates utilized in SDHPT paving contracts.  However, these costs should be offset by more durable hot-mixes with reduced maintenance costs.  Adoption of proposed changes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 should not result in noticeable increases in bid item prices.  The increased costs for these changes will come in the area of SDHPT's costs to administer and inspect the design and production of Item 340 hot-mix paving work. In the long run, changes 4, 5 and 8 should result in the increased effectiveness of SDHPT personnel to design, inspect and evaluate hot-mix materials and paving layers. (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 1986 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/267871</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RANGE ESTIMATING: AN OWNER'S EXPERIENCE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/59161</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Range estimating measures the uncertainity in every bid by fixing an upper and lower limit for all major cost factors in a project.  It also enables the contractor to concentrate upon areas in which costs can be reduced in order to counterbalance the areas in which the biggest cost differentiation is likely to occur.  The upper and lower limits of the range are fed into a computer which builds the project several thousand times, and the results are reported in a profile showing several different total costs which the project can incur along with the mathematical probability of overrunning each such total cost.  The probability of overrunning the projects total cost is also given along with the reasons why the overrun probability is high or low.  The maximum potential overrun and other important data are also shown.  Range estimating may be applied in a wide variety of circumstances: by contractors to establish bid prices for competitive or negotiated work; architects and engineers to develop conceptual or preliminary estimates; by owners to establish budgets; and by construction managers and owners to insure that projects are completed within budget.  This article discusses the last two of these applications, with particular emphasis on project management.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/59161</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MODEL FORM OF 'NOTICE TO BIDDERS'</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/140158</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The "Notice to Bidders" is a document used by public or private owners to notify prospective bidders that bids will be requested for performing specified work. The document contains sufficient information to enable a prospective bidder to determine whether or not he wants to submit a bid. The notification may be in the form of advertising in journals and newspapers, as is usually required by public owners, or may be in the form of a mailing to a selected list of contractors, as is often done in the case of private owners. The document is in guide form with suggested alternates for deposits for bidding documents and bid security. The document supplements the "Form of Contract for Engineering Construction Projects," 1966 ediction (AGC Standard Form 3, ASCE Form JCC-1).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 1974 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/140158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>