Boston’s Central Artery Project, the Big Dig, replaced the city’s elevated highways with a series of underground tunnels. Since its inception in 1983, the Big Dig has plagued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with problems. The initial $2.6 billion project budget has soared to over $14 billion. Further, environmental regulations, community opposition, and design changes have delayed the completion date from the mid 1990s to December 2005. Finally, not only is the project well over budget and behind schedule, but the recent death of Milena Del Valle in one Big Dig tunnel and persistent tunnel leaks also have led many to question the tunnels’ design quality and construction integrity.
In 1982, when the Big Dig was in its infancy, state construction laws mandated that the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) use design-bid-build as the project delivery method. In response to years of criticism regarding state construction laws, however, Massachusetts legislators passed construction reform legislation in 2004. The reform included a new project delivery method whereby authorized agencies could use design-build instead of the traditional design-bid-build method for roads, bridges, and tunnels. Under design-build, instead of contracting with designers and contractors separately, owners contract with a single entity that is responsible for both the project design and construction. Saving time and reducing costs are among the proposed advantages to the design-build delivery method.
This Note examines whether the use of the design-build method would have mitigated the problems on the Big Dig had the alternate delivery method been available earlier. Whether design-build could have saved the Big Dig helps predict the success of other states’ design-build legislation. This inquiry is also germane now that several states are considering expansive roadway projects similar to the Big Dig. . . .