Case Study
WOODROW WILSON
BRIDGE IN
MARYLAND AND
VIRGINIA
FHWA Leads the Planning
Process for Bridge Redesign
Accelerating solutions for highway safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity
© 2010 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
This case study was developed through SHRP 2 Capacity Project C01: A Framework for Collaborative Decision
Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. It is integrated into Transportation for Communities: Advancing
Projects through Partnerships, a website that is a product of research conducted under Capacity Project C01
(www.transportationforcommunities.com).
The Transportation for Communities website provides a systematic approach for reaching collaborative decisions
about adding highway capacity that enhance the environment, the economy, and the community and improve transportation. It identifies key decision points in four phases of transportation decision making: long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, programming, and environmental review and permitting.
The case studies for Capacity Project C01 were prepared by ICF International, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina; URS Corporation, Morrisville, North Carolina; and Marie Venner Consulting, Lakewood, Colorado.
This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Copyright Information
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from
publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for
classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be
used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected
that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request
permission from SHRP 2.
Notice
Capacity Project C01 was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this case study were chosen
for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The case study was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation
Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this case study are those of the researchers who performed
the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or
the program sponsors.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors
of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or
manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the case study.
Case Study
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE
IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
FHWA Leads the Planning Process
for Bridge Redesign
Executive Summary 1
Background 3
Major Project Issues 6
Institutional Framework for Decision Making 7
Transportation Decision-Making Process 9
Key Decisions 11
Lessons Learned 11
Summary 15
References 15
Executive Summary
Since 1961, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge has carried traffic over the Potomac River between
Maryland and Virginia. It is part of the I-95 system, the main north-south route on the East Coast.
Initially designed to carry 75,000 vehicles per day, the bridge experienced traffic volumes of 195,000
vehicles per day by 2004. Consequently, heavy traffic congestion and major delays became daily
occurrences on the bridge, leading to regional demands for a new and larger bridge. Excessive traffic
loading also took a toll on the bridge, accelerating its deterioration and raising valid safety concerns.
Because the federal government owned this aging bridge, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) petitioned Congress for funds to replace it, with both Maryland and Virginia being
major players in this effort as well. FHWA led the planning for the bridge replacement, starting in
1989, and completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1997. The adequacy of that
statement was quickly challenged in court, but ongoing project redesigns also cast doubt on the
sufficiency of the EIS to support pending federal permitting decisions.
When the project was enjoined by the District Court for the District of Columbia, FHWA had
to decide whether to appeal, comply with the court’s order, or take a combination approach. This
decision was complicated by the fact that the existing final EIS had already had its draft EIS supplemented twice. Nevertheless, FHWA decided to prepare new supplemental draft and final EISs while
also appealing the district court’s decision.
Although deciding to move forward with additional impact analyses, FHWA did not change
its position on the basic issue that was being litigated: selection of a 12-lane bridge as the preferred
alternative in the first EIS and dismissal of a 10-lane structure for detailed analysis on the basis that
10 lanes could not meet long-term traffic capacity needs and, therefore, could not meet the purpose
of and need for the project. A federal district court agreed with opponents who requested that a
10-lane bridge be analyzed in the EIS as a reasonable alternative. FHWA appealed this decision.
The court of appeals, in reversing the district court, agreed with FHWA’s position that only the
alternatives that meet the project’s purpose and need must be analyzed in the EIS, and accepted as
reasonable FHWA’s position that a 10-lane bridge did not meet the purpose and need. Not only did
this court decision resolve a fundamental question on the design of the bridge, but it also set a significant national precedent in framing the scope of alternatives that need to be analyzed in an EIS.
In addition to the challenge of addressing this litigation, FHWA had to address difficult inter
agency and community coordination issues given the bridge’s location within two states and the
District of Columbia. To address these issues, FHWA
• Assembled an experienced team of managers and consultants to address complex environmental
impact questions on dredging, aquatic resources, and cultural resources;
• Reopened direct and effective communications with numerous federal and state resource
agencies; and
• Established collaborative decision-making teams that included local communities and citizens.
Through this collaborative approach, FHWA reached consensus on a high-quality design for
the bridge.
Because FHWA identified potential adverse environmental impacts in the supplemental EIS
process, the agency worked closely with the resource agencies to develop mitigation measures. In
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
consultation with the cooperating agencies on the EIS, FHWA took a broad perspective in considering potential mitigation measures; that is, discussions and decisions were not limited to minimum
protections but included efforts to improve affected resources in a more regional, ecosystem-based
approach. This perspective resulted in a comprehensive package of mitigation measures. Excellent examples include the establishment of fish reefs in the Chesapeake Bay with thousands of
tons of the old bridge and the installation of fish passageways on Rock Creek and Anacostia River
tributaries.
To assist in the implementation of the mitigation and to ease potential concerns, FHWA
established an independent environmental monitor to observe and report on the completion status
of all agreed-on mitigation. FHWA complemented this monitoring approach with development of
a comprehensive database, tracking, and reporting system and made that system accessible to the
regulatory agencies involved. The independent monitor and tracking system were successful from
FHWA’s and the resource agencies’ perspectives and have been replicated on other large highway
projects.
FHWA met its goal of completing concurrent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and Section 404 permitting processes and used the draft and final supplemental EISs to serve as the
initial and final permit applications, respectively. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was
a cooperating agency on the supplements, held joint public hearings with FHWA, and issued its
Section 404 permit approximately 2 weeks after FHWA completed its final supplemental EIS and
signed a Record of Decision (ROD).
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
Background
than the original and will allow most boats to pass
underneath. FHWA predicted that once the project
is complete, the number of bridge openings will be
reduced to about 65 a year, or less than two-thirds of
the current number of yearly openings.
The project also includes the redesign and reconstruction of the Capital Beltway as it approaches
the new bridge from both the Maryland and Virginia
sides. Four new interchanges will allow travelers to
more easily enter and leave the highway. The current
estimate of the entire cost of this ongoing project is
$2.5 billion, including a federal share of $1.6 billion.
Project Overview
The Woodrow Wilson Bridge project area is a
7.5-mile section that runs from west of Telegraph
Road in Virginia to east of Indian Head Highway
in Maryland along the I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway
(Figure 1). The bridge component includes two new,
side-by-side drawbridges with 12 lanes and 70 feet of
vertical navigational clearance at the draw span. Ten
of the 12 lanes are conventional highway lanes, and
the two additional lanes are for alternative transportation options that may become feasible during the
75-year life expectancy of the bridge. These options
may include trains, buses, high-occupancy vehicles,
express toll lane service, high-occupancy toll lanes, or
another special purpose (1).
The lane configuration separates local and longdistance travelers. Full shoulders are provided across
the bridge. The new bridge also accommodates a
pedestrian/bicycle path.
The design of this box-girder bridge features
32 fixed spans supported on V-shaped piers. These
piers offer the look of arches but provide a more
open appearance with smaller foundations than a
true arched design. The new bridge is 20 feet higher
Project Drivers
The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge opened
in 1961 as a six-lane structure designed to carry a
volume of 75,000 vehicles per day (Figure 2). Con
structed and owned by the federal government, the
bridge carries the Capital Beltway over the Potomac
River, connecting Alexandria, Virginia, to Prince
George’s County, Maryland. The Capital Beltway
(I-495) is a part of I-95, the main north-south interstate route on the East Coast of the United States.
The bridge is also a drawbridge that opened approximately 200 times per year.
Over the decades, traffic increased on the bridge
as a result of both through traffic and
regional commuters. In September
2004, the daily traffic volume was
195,000 vehicles, far surpassing the
design capacity. This heavy traffic
resulted in severe congestion, aggravated by an eight-lane beltway
feeding into a six-lane bridge. The
congestion contributed to a particularly high accident rate and expedited
the bridge’s deterioration.
Regional businesses and the
commuting public frequently voiced
their complaints to the political
establishment inside the Capital
Beltway, emphasizing frequent congestion on the bridge and resulting
major delays as the most noticeable
bridge problems. Because the bridge
was federally owned, FHWA testified
Figure 1. Project area.
Courtesy of Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
Figure 2. Woodrow Wilson Bridge, ca. 1962.
Courtesy of Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.
• Protect and improve the character and nature of
the surrounding environment.
before Congress on several occasions in support of
funding requests for planning and construction. The
existing and growing problems of traffic congestion
on the bridge, deteriorating structural conditions,
safety, the region’s almost daily frustration with this
congestion, and congressional oversight were the
major drivers for replacing the bridge.
In 1989, FHWA, along with agencies in Virginia,
Maryland, and the District of Columbia, began examining alternative approaches to solving the bridge’s
capacity and structural problems. FHWA also studied
the potential effects on the adjacent communities of
rebuilding the bridge, including potential impacts
to well-known archeological and historic resources
located on the Virginia side of the Potomac River.
FHWA issued a draft EIS in August 1991. This
draft EIS analyzed five alternatives for replacing
the bridge, each of which would expand the bridge
to 12 lanes. Because this draft EIS met with significant public dissatisfaction, FHWA formed a Project
Coordination Committee to assist in the identification of additional alternatives. The membership included senior-level officials from FHWA; the Virginia,
Maryland, and District of Columbia transportation
agencies; USACE; the National Park Service; the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments;
the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning
Initial Concept and Planning
FHWA maintained the following four goals for the
project:
• Provide adequate capacity for existing and future
travel demand by improving operating conditions
and fixing the bottleneck caused by eight Capital
Beltway through lanes converging into six lanes
across the river;
• Facilitate intermodal travel, such as transit or highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, bicycling, and
maritime access up the Potomac River;
• Improve safety by reducing the number of accidents and improving access for emergency response
vehicles; and
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
Commission; the City of Alexandria, Virginia;
Fairfax County, Virginia; Prince George’s County,
Maryland; and state-level elected leaders from the
affected region. The committee subsequently considered more than 350 alternatives, and on a consensus
basis recommended many of these for more thorough
screening by the EIS development team.
FHWA also facilitated public involvement in
the identification of alternatives by establishing panel
groups and focus groups. To accommodate consideration of the alternatives, FHWA supplemented its
1991 draft EIS twice, releasing the first supplemental
draft EIS in January 1996 and the second in July
1996.
Also in the mid-1990s, the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995 granted
consent to Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia to establish, by interstate agreement, the
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority, and
authorized the transfer of ownership of the Woodrow
Wilson Memorial Bridge to that authority. Maryland
and Virginia eventually negotiated an agreement for
joint ownership of the new bridge.
FHWA issued its final EIS, which included consideration of eight alternatives, in September 1997.
FHWA included one “no build” alternative and
seven build alternatives that all envisioned a 12-lane
structure. The preferred alternative consisted of two
parallel, six-lane drawbridges. In November 1997,
FHWA selected this preferred alternative in its ROD.
Approximately 2 months later, in January
1998, the City of Alexandria filed a lawsuit alleging
that FHWA violated several requirements of NEPA,
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA), and Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act. Alexandria eventually reached a
settlement with FHWA in March 1999 and before the
first trial (2), but the lawsuit was continued by three
Alexandria-based organizations acting as plaintiffs.
In April 1999, the district court ruled in favor of
the plaintiffs on all three allegations. Under NEPA, the
court concluded that FHWA had not afforded detailed
consideration to a 10-lane river crossing as a reasonable alternative and had only given cursory treatment
to the potential impacts of the construction phase. The
court found FHWA’s implementation of Section 106 to
be defective, reasoning that the agency could not adequately take into account the impacts to protected historic properties because it postponed identification of
the sites that were to be used for construction-related
purposes. Because compliance with Section 106 is an
initial procedural step in completing the Section 4(f)
requirement to minimize harm to historic properties,
the court also concluded that FHWA failed to comply
with Section 4(f). FHWA appealed the district court’s
opinion to the D.C. Circuit Court, which reversed the
lower court’s decision in December 1999 (3). Plaintiffs
then asked for a hearing before the Supreme Court,
which denied that request.
In overruling the lower court, the D.C. Circuit
Court did not agree with the district court’s position
that a 10-lane bridge was a reasonable alternative.
The district court had found it to be a reasonable
alternative based on the smaller bridge’s ability to
reduce much of the projected traffic congestion while
having less of an adverse environmental impact than
a larger bridge. However, the circuit court concluded
that for an alternative to be reasonable, it must meet
all of the objectives of the federal action. The circuit
court further concluded that it was reasonable for
FHWA to narrow the project’s objectives to resolving
the transportation and safety issues being experienced by the bridge, and a 10-lane bridge was only a
partial solution to them. On the less critical issues regarding the adequacy of the analysis of construction
impacts, the circuit court found the analysis not to be
as tersely presented as the district court had found.
Postponing the identification of construction sites
was also determined to be permissible for Section
106 and Section 4(f) compliance purposes because
the sites were primarily construction staging areas
that were ancillary to the project, not normally identified until the design stage of the project, and subject
to a Section 106 memorandum of agreement with the
appropriate cultural resource protection agencies.
While litigation was proceeding, FHWA continued to implement commitments from the 1997 ROD,
including a bridge design competition. Four firms,
which submitted a total of seven concepts, were declared finalists. A panel chaired by former Maryland
Governor Harry Hughes announced the winning
concept at a November 18, 1998, press conference.
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
This case study primarily addresses the remaining project development process that occurred after
FHWA signed its November 1997 ROD.
Constructability reviews during the bridge design
concept competition revealed that the construction
concepts assumed in the 1997 final EIS would not
work with the type and size of structure now being
considered. Providing access for the heavy equipment
that would be necessary to handle the proposed large
steel girders and foundation elements was projected
to require a substantial increase in the amount of
dredging and sediment removal with associated
larger impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation.
Other increased adverse impacts were projected for
noise, wetland and woodland loss, and endangered
species. The need for increased mitigation closely
followed from the need to analyze these increased
impacts. However, FHWA understood that the
relatively confined nature of the project site limited
the ability to identify mitigation on site or near the
project site.
Although a number of years had passed since
the beginning of the EIS process and FHWA had
addressed new impacts, the agency still faced a basic
dispute over the best alternative for crossing the
Potomac River. Some parties continued to recommend a tunnel crossing and a 10-lane bridge rather
than FHWA’s preferred 12 lanes. This dispute was
not only before the federal courts as the FHWA team
commenced the supplemental draft EIS, but also,
more significantly, the district court ordered FHWA
to analyze a 10-lane bridge.
The 1997 final EIS addressed a limited range of
cultural resource impacts because it looked mainly
at the bridge’s footprint. Consequently, identification and treatment of cultural resources was a major
remaining issue in the development of a supplemental
draft EIS because support areas for demolition,
staging, and other activities would affect a much
larger area than previously anticipated. Alexandria,
Virginia, has a large historic district, with a rich
history as a tobacco port in the early 1700s and
as a noted center for many founding fathers. The
bridge was immediately adjacent to two Alexandria
cemeteries: St. Mary’s Cemetery, which is the oldest
continuously operating Catholic cemetery in Virginia,
and Freedmen’s Cemetery, where African Americans
who were freed during the Civil War are buried. In
Major Project Issues
In 1999, approximately 10 years after starting the
planning process for replacing the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge, FHWA and sponsoring agencies reevaluated
design changes to the preferred alternative identified in the 1997 final EIS. FHWA concluded, on the
basis of allegations in the unresolved litigation and a
strong recommendation from USACE, that a supplemental draft and final EIS were required to address
the changes.
FHWA’s decision to prepare the supplement was
not without controversy. The location of the project
within the National Capital Region and the need for
a congressional funding authorization had placed the
project under a unique microscope. The additional
time needed to prepare the supplement could delay
the start of construction and add to its costs. Because
FHWA had already prepared two draft supplements
on the first EIS, the agency had to assure its detractors that the new supplemental draft and final EISs
would be completed expeditiously and without any
further setbacks.
As the sponsoring agencies and resource agencies reassembled in early 1999 to begin another
effort at completing a satisfactory EIS process for
the bridge, FHWA knew that several major agencies were unhappy with the interagency consultations that had occurred to date, some potentially
major construction impacts were unresolved, public
concerns remained, and litigation over alternatives
was ongoing. FHWA recognized that in order to
meet its commitment to Congress that construction
would begin in fall 2000, it had to quickly gain the
full cooperation of a variety of affected agencies and
organizations.
After completion of the ROD for the first final
EIS, FHWA determined that the bridge could not be
built as envisioned in that EIS, a major complication to achieve agency and organization cooperation.
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
addition, the banks of the Potomac in Maryland
and Virginia contain numerous archaeological sites,
historic homes, and monuments. Jones Point Park,
located underneath the bridge on the Virginia side,
contains numerous cultural resources, including a
historic lighthouse, remnants of a World War I shipbuilding facility, and the southern cornerstone for the
District of Columbia (although the land was ceded
back to Virginia in 1848).
irginia Institute of Marine Science, the Maryland
V
Department of the Environment, the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, and the District
of Columbia Health Department. ICG continued
to meet throughout the construction process and
reviewed the status of promised mitigation measures. The ICG meeting minutes are maintained and
available at the two project offices in Virginia and
Maryland.
Of the four sponsoring agencies, the District
of Columbia was the least affected by the project.
Approximately 700 feet of its land was affected, and
it had responsibility for operating the draw span of
the old bridge. The District’s primary jurisdictional
interest was to relinquish this operational responsibility for the new bridge, which it did. The District
consequently limited its role to commenting on draft
documents, and it approved both the draft and final
supplements.
Institutional Framework
for Decision Making
Involved Agencies
The replacement of the bridge involved a broad mix
of authorities. Unlike more traditional intrastate
highway projects where the affected state’s department of transportation has taken the lead role in
completing the NEPA document, FHWA led the preparation of the supplement because it owned the old
bridge and the bridge improvements; the interchanges
were state owned but 100% federally funded. Other
federal agencies with major decision-making roles
included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Park
Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation.
In addition to FHWA, the sponsoring agencies
for the supplement included the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Maryland State
Highway Administration (MSHA), and the District
of Columbia Department of Public Works (DCDPW).
USACE joined FHWA as a cooperating agency so
that it could use the supplements as its NEPA compliance documents for its pending Clean Water Act
permitting decisions.
All the above agencies plus others made up a
29-member Interagency Coordination Group (ICG).
The local members included the City of Alexandria
and Fairfax County in Virginia and Prince George’s
County, Maryland. State-level members included the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the
Community Involvement
FHWA went well beyond traditional methods to inform and involve the public in the development of the
supplemental EISs. To provide the public with easy
access to project documents, it opened project offices
in Alexandria, Virginia, and Oxon Hill, Maryland.
Outreach methods and techniques included fact
sheets, resource papers, newsletters, open houses at
project offices, a speakers’ bureau, quarterly breakfast briefings for elected officials, a web page, and
public visiting hours at its consultants’ project site
offices. For a project with such a small project study
area, FHWA also went beyond normal practice when
it held two public hearings on the supplemental draft
EIS. One hearing was held in Alexandria at the request of Alexandria residents, and the other was held
in Prince George’s County, Maryland, because the
impact issues of concern varied substantially between
these geographic locations.
In addition to having a variety of methods to
inform and involve the affected region, FHWA and
its cooperating agencies used these tools extensively.
Community briefings and workshops were frequently
and regularly scheduled, and requests for speakers
or special briefings were quickly granted. FHWA recognized that in the project development process for
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
the bridge an important goal was to keep the public
informed and involved. It achieved this goal through
comprehensive efforts and the use of public relations
experts who crafted clear and consistent project
information.
orking Group be established before the initiation of
W
the detailed design phase, for the purpose of providing comments. The members of the working group
were the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
the National Park Service, the Virginia Department
of Historic Resources, the Maryland Historical Trust,
the District Historic Preservation Office, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the City of Alexandria, and Prince George’s
County.
The working group met for 2 days and reviewed the design concepts submitted by the four
firms that were the finalists in the design competition.
They were able to reach a consensus on a highquality design that included long spans and an arch
design similar to other Potomac River bridges in the
capital area (Figure 3).
A second major collaborative component was
inserted into the project in late 1998 when FHWA
formed stakeholder participation panels (4). FHWA
proposed and organized four panels: Telegraph Road
Interchange Panel, Jones Point Park Panel, Route 1/
Washington Street/Urban Deck Panel, and Maryland
Interchanges Panel. FHWA defined stakeholders as
those individuals and groups directly affected by the
Collaborative Decision-Making Elements
An important collaborative component occurred
with respect to the design of the bridge. As part of
the first EIS, FHWA signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) in October 1997 that stipulated various
steps required of FHWA to avoid impacts to cultural
resources. Because the design and size of the bridge
could both physically and visually affect nearby
significant historic properties, especially those at the
foot of the bridge in Alexandria, a major stipulation of the MOA addressed the development of the
bridge’s final design and established several design
goals for the bridge:
• The bridge shall be a structure designed with high
aesthetic values, deriving its form in relation to the
monumental core of Washington, D.C., and shall
be an asset to the nation’s capital and the surrounding region;
• The concepts for the bridge shall be based on
arches in the tradition of notable
Potomac bridges (e.g., Key Bridge
and Memorial Bridge);
• The bridge design shall employ
span lengths that minimize the
number of piers occurring in
the viewshed of the Alexandria
Historic District;
• The bridge design should preserve or enhance views along
the Potomac River toward
the National Capital and the
Alexandria Historic District; and
• The project shall be designed to
avoid all temporary and permanent impacts to the Freedmen’s
Cemetery.
To ensure that these design
goals were met, the MOA further
stipulated that a Design Review
Figure 3. Rendering of the new bridge.
Courtesy of Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
project, including bridge users. The stated purpose of
the panels was to identify valued community characteristics, define community goals and guidelines for
the final design, and work with designers and planners to codevelop concepts and proposed designs that
enhance and preserve the natural environment, the
built environment, and the social environment of the
community. It was made clear to prospective panel
members, however, that alternatives would not be
revisited and that the preferred alternative was the
focus of the panel’s work.
FHWA sought a balanced and representative
group of panel members and used a nomination
process with selections made by elected officials and
other community leaders. Panel members came from
local chambers of commerce, environmental interest
groups, local governments, the American Automobile
Association, and bicycle route proponents. All panel
meetings were open to the public and recorded with
meeting minutes.
Panel members met approximately once a
month over the course of a year and worked with
design consultants to reach a consensus on designs.
Proposed designs that were 20% to 30% complete
were made available for review at public information meetings in Virginia and Maryland. From the
public comments, the design consultants made
additional refinements in consultation with panel
members. Next, designs that were considered to be
60% to 70% complete were presented at a Virginia
Design Public Hearing. Following additional refinements from the results of this public hearing, the
Virginia panels’ recommendations were provided to
the Virginia Technical Coordination Team (TCT)
for its decisions. The Virginia TCT consisted of the
VDOT project manager and bridge engineer, FHWA
project manager, and FHWA Virginia Division,
Fairfax County, and City of Alexandria engineering
staff. The TCT approved 92% of these recommendations. For example, the TCT approved the Telegraph
Road Panel’s recommendations for avoiding impacts
to commercial properties, as well as the elimination
of interchange traffic lights north and south of the
Beltway. The remaining recommendations were not
within the TCT’s approval authority, but the TCT
forwarded them to the appropriate authorities.
The TCT forwarded 19 recommendations to
the VDOT chief engineer. The final supplemental EIS
states that these recommendations, based on the approval of the VDOT chief engineer, were incorporated
into the design of the preferred alternative (5). Exam
ples of these recommendations for the Telegraph
Road interchange included geometric changes in the
quadrants of the interchange ramps, the addition of
pedestrian access across Telegraph Road, and protected turn lanes at Huntington Avenue. For the US-1
interchange, the final EIS incorporated intersection
modifications, pedestrian/bicycle connections, and
Washington Street deck refinements.
Virginia stakeholder panel members concluded
their work in June 1999, and FHWA asked participants to complete a survey on their experience.
Survey results showed that 60% felt that they had
influenced the design, about 30% were unsure, and
the remainder felt that they had not influenced the
project. In evaluating the consensus-building goals of
the process, 47% said that as a result of the process,
they were willing to compromise on some points of
the project design, whereas 42% said that their views
on project design had not changed as a result of the
panel process.
The Maryland Interchanges Panel began meeting in April 1999 and provided its recommendations
to the MSHA project manager. The panel proposed
lengthening several bridges over Oxon Hill Road to
accommodate pedestrian/bicyclists, eliminating some
of the proposed traffic signals, retaining a direct exit
from the Outer Loop of the Beltway to Oxon Hill
Road, and adding a grade separation at an existing
at-grade crossing. These were approved by MSHA
and included in the design. Figure 4 illustrates some
of the lane designs.
Transportation
Decision-Making Process
A variety of teams led by FHWA composed the
decision-making structure (Figure 5) for completion
of the design changes reflected in the 2000 supplemental NEPA documents.
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
Figure 4. Rendering of designed lane distribution.
Courtesy of Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.
• An Environmental Management Group (EMG),
which was charged with the completion of the
supplemental NEPA documents, securing necessary
permits, and monitoring mitigation commitments.
The EMG was composed of environmental managers from the sponsoring agencies, including staff
of the FHWA Maryland and Virginia Divisions
and the Eastern Resource Center, VDOT, MSHA,
DCDPW, and USACE. The EMG began meeting
regularly in May 1998, and its meeting minutes are
maintained and available at the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge Project Offices in Virginia and Maryland.
• The General Engineering Consultant Team (GEC),
which supported the EMG. This was and remains
an existing consortium of consulting firms that prepared design reviews, impact analyses, mitigation
proposals, permit applications, and now supports
project monitoring.
• The Virginia TCT consisting of the VDOT project
manager and bridge engineer, FHWA project manager, and FHWA Virginia Division, Fairfax County,
and City of Alexandria engineering staff. The
TCT met 12 times from September 1998 through
August 1999. It was charged with providing direction on the design elements and project features
associated with the refinements for the Virginia
portion of the project as well as with considering
recommendations from the three Virginia stakeholder participation panels.
• The ICG, which was composed of more than
20 natural resource agencies, with many having
The teams included the following:
• A Project Leadership Team consisting of high-level
officials from FHWA, MSHA, VDOT, and DCDPW.
This team’s role was to provide strategic decision
making, policy direction, and performance review.
• A Project Management Team composed of man
agers from FHWA, VDOT, MSHA, and DCDPW.
This team worked on site and provided integrated technical guidance as well as operational
management.
Project
Leadership
Sponsoring Agencies’
Project Management
Team
Virginia
Technical
Coordination
Team
Environmental
Management
Group
Interagency
Coordination
Group
Design
Review
Working
Group
Four
Stakeholder
Participation
Panels
Figure 5. Internal and external coordination and issue
resolution.
10
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
a ssociated permitting responsibilities. The ICG
worked directly with the GEC and EMG on
the identification and acceptance of mitigation
measures.
• The Design Review Working Group, as discussed
above, conducted the bridge design competition
and reviewed other design documents and treatment plans for potential impacts to historic and
cultural resources.
previously considered alternatives did not meet the
project’s purpose and need statement. FHWA also
decided that the draft supplemental EIS would carry
forward the preferred alternative from the 1997
final EIS and address the environmental impacts of
design refinements and construction impacts. On the
basis of this project management decision, the EMG
focused on building consensus around redesigns,
completing high-quality impact analyses of redesign
and construction impacts, and completing a comprehensive package of mitigation measures.
Decisions on dredging and dredged material
disposal were coordinated between USACE‘s
Baltimore and Norfolk Districts, with input from
VDOT, FHWA, EPA, MSHA, the Maryland Port
Administration, Maryland Environmental Services,
and the Maryland Departments of the Environment
and Transportation. Maryland agencies were particularly involved in the dredging impacts of the project
because the state of Maryland owned the majority of
the Potomac River that fell within the project area.
Lessons Learned
Success Factor: Open and Collaborative
Approach Reinvigorated Participants
and Problem Resolution
By the time FHWA informed the affected resource
agencies that a draft and final supplemental EIS
would be required, these agencies had already been
working on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project for
well over 10 years. The FHWA environmental manager assigned to prepare the supplements recognized
and quickly addressed frustrations with the process
and some distrust with the manner in which it had
moved forward. FHWA assured the resource agencies
that their concerns would be heard and all reasonable
efforts would be made to accommodate their mitigation recommendations. Whenever a recommendation
could not be accommodated, FHWA explained its
reasons and was open to any follow-up responses
or modifications to the recommendation. This open,
direct, and collaborative approach reinvigorated the
participants and fostered a team approach to problem resolution.
This approach proved to be extremely beneficial when late in the NEPA process, after the publication of the draft supplemental EIS, FHWA and the
resource agencies determined that it was necessary to
consult on two potential endangered species impacts.
One consultation occurred with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding possible impacts
to endangered shortnose sturgeon. The other consultation occurred with FWS over possible impacts
to the bald eagle, which was listed as an endangered
Key Decisions
FHWA used its existing reevaluation procedures to
decide whether to supplement the 1997 final EIS.
Although the outcome may have been clear simply
on the basis of the reevaluation of the newly projected and much larger construction impacts, FHWA
also factored into its decision the allegations from
the ongoing litigation. FHWA recognized that a
supplement would provide a head start in addressing
these allegations in the event that the agency lost its
appeal. Although an affirmative decision would raise
budget and scheduling concerns, FHWA decided to
turn its efforts into initiating a supplemental draft
EIS based on this litigation strategy, coupled with
USACE’s strong position that because of the dramatic
increase in dredging that was required, USACE could
no longer use the 1997 EIS for permit decisions.
A secondary but important decision that
related to the initiation of the draft supplement was
determining the scope of that document. Whether
an appropriate range of alternatives had been analyzed was still a matter of public controversy and the
subject of the ongoing litigation. FHWA continued
to only consider a 12-lane structure on the basis that
11
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
species at the time. On the basis of a rapidly prepared FHWA biological assessment, NMFS concurred in a no-adverse-effect determination for the
sturgeon. After preparing a biological opinion for the
bald eagle, FWS concluded this consultation on the
basis of acceptable project mitigation. The working
relationships and professional trust that had been
established between the agency representatives led to
the resolution of sensitive endangered species impacts
that might normally have derailed the project development schedule and created a media controversy.
ensure that its complete list of requirements was
actually implemented. FWHA took two important
steps in response:
• First, FHWA included within the mitigation package a requirement for the designation of an independent environmental compliance monitor. The
monitor reports directly and concurrently to the
regulatory agencies and the sponsoring agencies on
the status of FHWA’s compliance with the mitigation measures.
• Second, with extensive technical assistance from
the GEC, FHWA developed a system to track the
numerous environmental commitments made during both the first and second project planning and
development processes. The development and use
of the tracking system was reinforced by the Depart
ment of the Army Permit, Special Condition 5. As
a major bridge project, the management of waterrelated impacts was a major undertaking. Special
Condition 5 required the submission of interim and
final tracking reports for environmental commitments, reports on instances of noncompliance, and
a final report of total impacts to the waters of the
United States.
Key Innovation: Comprehensive
Project Mitigation
The ROD for the final supplemental EIS contained
numerous mitigation measures covering several
pages. These measures ranged from some specific requirements to concepts that required further analysis
and consultation with the affected resource agencies.
Mitigation requirements were divided between
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
on the basis of the functions and types of permanent impacts associated with each jurisdiction. The
requirements included the following:
Irrespective of USACE’s permit requirements,
the tracking system was a necessary management tool
for the bridge development process because this was
a highly complex project. For example, one contracting component of the bridge reconstruction was contract VA‑5, for the reconfiguration of the interchange
with US-1 in Alexandria. VA-5 was a $39 million
subcontract involving construction of 11 bridge
structures to carry traffic over extremely sensitive
areas, including Cameron Run, Hunting Creek,
and tidal wetlands and mudflats associated with the
Potomac River. The planning process had entailed a
great deal of effort to ensure that water quality was
not adversely affected. The contractor had to remove
the old causeways and accesses, which was a major
challenge. The contract required 44 cofferdams,
and each pumped discharge that needed treatment
through sediment bags and turbidity curtains. The
VA-5 subcontract alone had 944 commitments
designed to prevent impacts to the sensitive environmental resources of the area.
• Installation of 22 fish passageways and one fish
ladder on Rock Creek and Anacostia River tributaries to allow fish to spawn upstream of previous
man-made barriers;
• Stocking of 15 million river herring in Rock Creek
and Anacostia River tributaries;
• Establishment of an 84-acre bald eagle sanctuary in
Prince George’s County;
• Building of a fish reef in the Chesapeake Bay using
thousands of tons of the old bridge;
• Preservation or creation of approximately
146 acres of wetlands at various locations in
Virginia and Maryland;
• Planting of 20 acres of river grasses in the lower
Potomac River for fish habitat and water cleaning
purposes; and
• Preservation of more than 140 acres of woodlands
in Prince George’s County.
An important question or concern from the
public as well as the ICG was how FHWA would
12
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
The database was maintained by the GEC as a
monitoring tool for the Environmental Management
Group. It was accessible to the resource agencies.
The GEC monitored the database closely to ensure
that the information was conveyed to the appropriate
parties. Before an interagency meeting, such as the
Design Review Working Group, or the preparation of
permit plates for dredging activities, the GEC would
go through the list of commitments to ensure that
their status was properly conveyed to the appropriate
parties.
FHWA’s use of the tracking system was invaluable to the project development, permitting, and delivery processes. It became the repository of thousands of
commitments and could be reviewed and updated at
any time in response to project activities. It provided
a method for ensuring that commitments were carried
out. Furthermore, this tracking database now serves as
a record of the mitigation process and is the basis for
accurate and efficient reporting to permitting agencies
and other interested organizations.
accessible at the local project offices. The minutes
also became the basis for tracking progress and the
commitments made on a variety of issues. The federal government’s litigation team also relied on the
minutes to explain FHWA’s decision-making process
to the court.
Litigation Management
During the initial months that FHWA prepared the
supplemental draft EIS, the agency was still under the
federal district court’s decision that it had violated
NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act with respect
to the 1997 final EIS process. Nevertheless, FHWA
chose to consistently maintain its position that only
a 12-lane structure could meet the project’s purpose
and need. Rather than reopening consideration of
alternatives in the supplemental draft EIS and restating the purpose and need for the project, FHWA
referred the reader back to the 1997 final EIS for the
purpose and need statement. In so doing, FWHA was
able to focus the remaining analytical work and extensive interagency coordination around its preferred
alternative.
At the same time, FHWA was sensitive to both
its position in the lawsuit and the related and continuing questions from the public on the feasibility of
a tunnel alternative. In response, FHWA undertook a
more thorough and documented analysis of a tunnel
alternative and shared it with the public. FHWA did
this to more fully and openly explain the reasons
why it believed that a tunnel was not a reasonable
alternative. FHWA also included the tunnel study
as an appendix in the final supplemental EIS rather
than in the body of the document. In its ROD for the
final supplemental EIS, FHWA concluded that any
benefits of a tunnel were greatly outweighed by the
substantially greater environmental impacts, costs,
operational issues, and constructability challenges of
this alternative.
This litigation strategy proved highly successful because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia agreed with FHWA’s position that for
an alternative to be considered within the range of
the reasonable alternatives, it must meet the purpose
of and need for the project. The Court found that
Barriers Encountered and Solutions
Interagency Coordination
FHWA faced a complex task in having to coordinate
project planning between two states, the District of
Columbia, all of their jurisdictional components, and
several major federal agencies. To reduce the communication problems that could arise with so many
parties involved, FHWA assigned key environmental
and project management staff to the two project
offices. It assigned an FHWA attorney to work with
this on-site staff on a continuing basis. Several representatives from involved resource protection agencies
as well as the consulting consortium noted that this
on-site presence was critical in both simplifying communications between all parties and obtaining timely
guidance and decisions from FHWA.
FHWA also scheduled frequent meetings. The
EMG and GEC met weekly to go over the status of
unresolved impact issues as well as next steps. The
ICG, the larger group of predominantly resource
protection agencies, met at least monthly.
FHWA directed that minutes be recorded, distributed, preserved, and made publicly available and
13
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
FHWA need not consider alternatives in detail that do
not meet FHWA’s transportation goals for a project.
This decision was of great value as a precedent in
FHWA’s NEPA program because it rejected earlier
judicial interpretations of NEPA as requiring even
unreasonable alternatives to be considered in an EIS
and it came from such an influential federal court.
resources. FHWA was able to use these flexible
procedures to effectively stage its compliance instead
of requiring complete identification and treatment of
all sites before the start of construction and as long
as the deferred sites were not yet subject to construction activities. A contributing factor to this effective
approach was the GEC’s cultural resource experts,
who were highly experienced in the Section 106 process and credible to the resource agencies.
Merger of NEPA and USACE’s
Permitting Requirements
Documenting Preconstruction Conditions
When FHWA announced its decision to start the
supplemental EIS process, it also committed to completing the process and required project permitting as
expeditiously as possible. FHWA worked closely with
USACE to achieve this result. For example, FHWA
used the supplemental draft EIS as its initial permit
application to USACE. FHWA and USACE held joint
public meetings for NEPA and permitting purposes.
The final supplemental EIS served as the final permit
application. Both agencies concurred in and used the
final supplemental EIS as their NEPA compliance
documents for their independent federal actions.
FHWA signed its ROD in June 2000 (6), and USACE
issued its permits approximately 2 weeks later.
As part of the comprehensive mitigation package for
the project, FHWA promised that the two cemeteries
on the Virginia side and near construction sites
would not be adversely disturbed. Before construction, headstones at St. Mary’s cemetery showed deterioration that appeared to be the result of their age.
To ensure that the headstones were not later considered to be harmed by construction, FHWA conducted
two full assessments of the more than 2,000 markers
and other structures, resulting in the preparation
of extensive notes and over 10,000 digital images.
FHWA placed vibration monitors above and below
ground and conducted pedestrian monitoring of
standing structures and ground disturbances. Weekly
monitoring indicated that no damage occurred that
could be correlated to bridge construction activities.
To confirm the results of the monitoring, FHWA
conducted a second assessment of the cemetery after
completing most of the US-1 interchange and made
comparisons to the previous assessment.
Unanticipated Construction Impacts
The low estimates of the dredging impacts in
FHWA’s 1997 final EIS and the resulting inability of
USACE to adopt that EIS were major reasons why
FHWA decided to prepare another draft and final
EIS. When preparing an EIS in the early stages of
the project development process, it is particularly
difficult for teams of planners and design engineers
to quantify construction impacts. All of the specific
construction, staging, materials, and disposal sites
may not be known and the team may not have sufficient construction expertise. This project highlights
the need to include that expertise to the fullest
extent possible.
Creative Disposal of Dredge Material
Once FHWA quantified dredging requirements,
off-site disposal of the dredged materials became a
serious problem. After the EMG and GEC evaluated
almost 20 disposal sites, the GEC found a disposal
site at Port Tobacco in Weanack, Charles County,
Virginia, to be acceptable on the basis of cost and
acceptance of wet dredged material (Figure 6). This
site is located on an 800-acre tract containing Shirley
Plantation, which is a designated National Register
and a National Historic Landmark site. As a result,
approximately 500,000 cubic yards of unwanted
dredged material served to stabilize and restore the
previous agricultural use and appearance of the
historic Shirley Plantation.
A Memorandum of Agreement
Is a Valuable Tool
As previously mentioned, FHWA entered into an
MOA for the purpose of complying with Section 106
of the NHPA. In addition to establishing the design
review goals for the bridge, the MOA established
procedures for evaluating and treating cultural
14
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
References
1. Potomac Crossing Consultants. Woodrow Wilson
Bridge Project Overview. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; Virginia Department of Transportation; Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration; and District of
Columbia Department of Public Works, 2007–2008.
Courtesy of Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.
2. Settlement Agreement Between the City of Alexandria,
Virginia, and the United States Department of Transportation, March 1, 1999. Attachment 4 in Record of Decision,
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, Federal Highway Administration, June 16, 2000. www.wilsonbridge.com/images/
stories/pdf/rodReport/2000ROD.pdf. Accessed July 13,
2010.
Summary
3. City of Alexandria, Virginia, et al. v. Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., 198
F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Figure 6. Dredge fill site.
4. Potomac Crossing Consultants. Stakeholder Participation Panels in the Public Involvement Process. Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, November 1998.
Ten years into the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project
development process, FHWA successfully faced the
challenges of restarting the NEPA and Section 404
permitting processes while minimizing further delays
in the start of the bridge’s construction. FHWA accomplished this by
5. Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation; Virginia Department of Transportation;
Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration; and District of Columbia Department
of Public Works, April 14, 2000. www.wilsonbridge.
com/images/stories/pdf/eisDocument/TOC.pdf. Accessed
July 13, 2010.
• Assembling a highly qualified team of federal and
state project managers and environmental impact
review staff;
• Securing excellent consultants;
• Effectively collaborating with USACE, other key
resource agencies, and the most affected public;
• Developing consensus around a context-sensitive
bridge design;
• Coordinating its litigation strategies with the scope
of its ongoing NEPA analyses;
• Negotiating a comprehensive set of mitigation
requirements; and
• Establishing a transparent monitoring program for
those requirements.
6. Record of Decision, Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.
Federal Highway Administration, June 16, 2000.
www.wilsonbridge.com/images/stories/pdf/rodReport/
2000ROD.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2010.
15
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863,
the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical
matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy
of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in
the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising
the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of
engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to
identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of
Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific
and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National
Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The
mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and
progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists,
and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation
departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EMP)
CMGT 528: PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS & PROCUREMENT
FALL SEMESTER 2018
PROJECT PROCUREMENT ANALYSIS
DUE DATE(S):
(REVISION 0, ISSUED 08/30/2018)
There are multiple due dates for the various assignment components:
Assignment 1:
Assignment 2:
Assignment 3:
Assignment 4:
Assignment 5:
PMBOK Section 12.1:
PMBOK Section 12.2:
PMBOK Section 12.3:
PMBOK Section 12.4:
Alternative Procurement Issue Identification:
(If Desired)
Assignment 6: Procurement Issue Analysis:
Assignment 7: Procurement Evaluation:
Final Assignment Submission and Presentation:
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Thursday, October 04, 2018
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Thursday, November 11, 2018
Thursday, December 06, 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The semester-long Project Procurement Analysis consists of a single report (both oral and written).
Each student will evaluate and analyze the procurement process as defined by Chapter 12 of the
PMBOK (4th / 5th Editions) for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, Washington, DC.
The analysis will consist of three main components:
PMBOK Procurement Analysis
An analysis of the four (4) Project Procurement Management components as defined by
Chapter 12 of the PMBOK (4th / 5th Editions) and the relative sub-elements within the three
(3) common subsections: “Inputs,” “Tools and Techniques,” and “Outputs.”
Procurement Issue Analysis
Discussion of a specific aspect of the project procurement process that represents something
“unique” to the procurement and/or delivery of the Wilson Bridge Project, such as those
identified below, or other as approved by the professor:
− Legal aspects of the project procurement
− Procurement for government-based projects
− Issues and problems with “mega project” procurements
− Unique aspects of bridge project procurements
− Project procurement and project-related social responsibility
− E-Procurement for project procurements
− Project procurement documentation requirements
Procurement Evaluation
Numeric evaluation (1 = lowest/worst, 5 = highest/best) and discussion of all phases of the
procurement and/or delivery of the Wilson Bridge Project, including items such as:
− Scope Management
− Time Management
− Cost Management
− Quality Management
− Resource Management
− Communications
− Risk Management
− Procurement Integration
In addition, highlight and discuss the major areas of strength (what worked well) and
weakness (areas for which there is an opportunity to improve) for the procurement process
for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project.
EVALUATION
The project is worth forty (40) percent of the semester course grade, representative of two
components: Interim submissions (Assignment Nos. 1 through 7, excluding No. 5) worth fifteen
(15) percent of the semester course grade, and the final submission and presentation worth twentyfive (25) percent of the semester course grade.
SAMPLE / POTENTIAL RESOURCES
Planning, Development, and Media: A Case Study of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Lisa
Schweitzer and Max Stephenson Jr., Journal of Planning Education and Research 2016, Vol.
36(2) 239 – 254. (Access this through the CUA Library Journal search engine)
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X15620280?journalCode=jpea
Woodrow Wilson Bridge – Construction, Capital Beltway dot com. http://capitalbeltway.com/Woodrow-Wilson-Bridge-Const.html#LATEST_UPDATE
Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Potomac River, Maryland, Virginia, Road Traffic Technology
https://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/woodrow_wilson/ (Note that there are multiple
sections per the Project Overview Menu on the Left Side of the Page)
Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Maryland and Virginia, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies. https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=968110
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project: A Mega Project Success Story, National Science Foundation
https://www.largefacilitiesworkshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Woodrow-WilsonBridge-Replacement-Project-A-Mega-Project-Success-StoryPOC.pdf
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Both a written presentation (report) and an oral presentation including a PowerPoint slide deck are
required. The oral presentation may take on any format desired, but must convey the three (3)
components of the assignment. The written report should average between 15 and 25 pages
(excluding the Cover Page, Index, Executive Summary, and any End Matter – e.g., Appendix,
Exhibits, Supporting Data, Reference List, etc.).
The interim submissions and the final are to be typewritten (single-spaced) and include a cover
page clearly depicting the project title, student name, assignment number and name, submission
date, and any other elements deemed appropriate in fulfillment of the assignment objectives. The
cover page should remain consistent for all assignments and the final report.
Submission for the face-to-face section are to be submitted in hardcopy (paper) format, and for the
online section are to be submitted electronically to the professor via e-mail as a single document
in PDF format.
12.4 Close Procurements
.1 Inputs
.1 Project management plan
.2 Procurement documents
.2 Tools & Techniques
.1 Procurement audits
.2 Procurement negotiations
.3 Records management system
.3 Outputs
.1 Closed procurements
.2 Organizational process assets
updates
12.2 Conduct
Procurements
12.3 Control
Procurements
.1 Inputs
.1 Procurement management
plan
.2 Procurement documents
.3 Source selection criteria
.4 Seller proposals
.5 Project documents
.6 Make-or-buy decisions
.7 Procurement statement of
work
.8 Organizational process assets
.1 Inputs
.1 Project management plan
.2 Procurement documents
3 Agreements
4 Approved change requests
.5 Work performance reports
.6 Work performance data
.2 Tools & Techniques
.1 Bidder conference
.2 Proposal evaluation
techniques
.3 Independent estimates
.4 Expert judgment
.5 Advertising
.6 Analytical techniques
.7 Procurement negotiations
.2 Tools & Techniques
.1 Contract change control
system
.2 Procurement performance
reviews
.3 Inspections and audits
.4 Performance reporting
.5 Payment systems
.6 Claims administration
.7 Records management system
.3 Outputs
.1 Selected sellers
.2 Agreements
.3 Resource calendars
4 Change requests
.5 Project management plan
updates
.6 Project documents updates
.3 Outputs
.1 Work performance information
.2 Change requests
.3 Project management plan
updates
.4 Project documents updates
.5 Organizational process assets
updates
Purchase answer to see full
attachment