Innovative Contracting for complex projects 2008 Design-Bid-Build is the traditional procurement method for underground construction in the U.S. and has remained virtually unchanged for 50 years. It is a basic approach, suitable where there is clarity of deliverable and low probability of major risk and changed conditions. Design-build is gaining momentum but there is not sufficient clarity of its advantages and disadvantages. Other promising methods such as General Contractor/Construction Manager (aka GCCM or Contractor at risk), incentive options (A+B bidding) and, more recently, Alliancing (Australia, UK) and Early Contractor Involvement (UK) exist. John Reilly is completing an inventory of these processes with an evaluation of GCCM and Alliancing for the Washington State Department of Transportation. Papers presented at RETC in 2007 outlined the issue and possibilities. Interest to the underground construction community: The design-bid-build project delivery method is ill-suited to many projects, particularly those that are highly complex, with substantial risk and are costly. Most underground projects fall into this category. Details of why this is the case will be given in the paper. Owners and contractors need better contractual and other tools to be able to respond to issues such as diminishing competition, enhanced risk and highly complex project design and delivery associated with very large projects. The ability to use alternative contracting tools to overcome shortcomings of DBB, where warranted, could enhance our ability to deliver projects on time and on budget with better results. Methods such as Alliancing, General Contractor/Construction Manager; and Competitive Contract Negotiations may allow us to overcome some of the traditional shortcomings associated with DBB. There has been significant discussion on “new and innovative procurement methods” that have been considered, evaluated and implemented, generally internationally. Owners in the US have been slow to change and to agree to adopt these new practices. Therefore, the US has lagged in implementation of these methods, still using Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build for the majority of contracts. Some believe, and International examples demonstrate, that several of these other methods are significantly better for effective project execution, increased value for the owner, minimization of claims and disputes and better recovery of cost and improved profit margins for the contractor. Innovation is substantially improved in some of these environments – e.g. alliancing. These methods have been given an opportunity for testing – under the Federal SEP-14 and SEP-15 programs and by some States and Cities - such as the GCCM contracts for the Portland CSO and Portland Tri-Max projects. It is reported that a shaft at Yucca Mountain is being implemented thru Alliancing.