Benefits and risks of APDM programmatic approaches to highway construction in the United States

Alternative Project Delivery Methods (APDMs), including design-build (D-B), progressive design-build (P-D-B), construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), and public-private partnerships (P3s), are widely used for highway projects (Gransberg, 2023; Macek et al., 2017; Salih et al., 2024). D-B involves a single contract for design and construction, while P-D-B engages the design-builder early to collaboratively advance the design and establish the final contract price (Salih et al., 2024). CM/GC uses an integrated approach where the agency selects the designer, construction manager, and independent cost estimator to coordinate design and cost development. Implementing APDMs requires different mindsets and approaches to processes, standards, risk allocations, and contracts to reach successful project outcomes.

Programmatic approaches have been defined and applied in several major initiatives worldwide. Globally, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) issued a guide in 2008 that defined the programmatic approach as a long-term, strategic framework consisting of individual but interlinked projects designed to achieve large-scale impacts on the global environment (GEF, 2008). A programmatic approach in the construction field represents a sector-wide framework that coordinates stakeholders to manage cost, schedule, quality, and contractual risks (ChR. Michelsen Institute, 2010). While evidence from the Dutch construction industry shows that such approaches can enhance innovation and cross-project learning (Vosman et al., 2020), their application remains limited in both research and practice for APDMs, particularly in integrating program-level management with project procurement. This study defines a programmatic approach to APDMs as an agency-wide framework that institutionalizes APDM practices across project delivery stages. Existing research on such approaches remains limited, and their development and application vary widely across states, consistent with Vosman et al. (2020). Highway agencies have faced challenges in administering and managing transportation programs, including (1) ensuring the timely and cost-effective delivery of projects, (2) allocating funding in a manner that is both efficient and fair, (3) creating projects that safeguard the physical and social environment, and (4) using resources in a manner that is both efficient and effective (ChR. Michelsen Institute, 2010; GEF, 2008; Lebunu Hewage et al., 2024). To overcome such challenges, highway agencies are increasingly using APDMs to deliver their transportation programs. Typically, APDMs require greater cooperation, partnering, and risk-sharing among agency owners, designers, contractors, and other parties (Fernando et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2023; Love et al., 2012). However, APDMs also have inherent risks arising from their non-traditional processes, increased reliance on collaboration between stakeholders, and the need for careful risk allocation and management throughout the project lifecycle.

A review of state Department of Transportation (DOT) documents shows that although many state DOTs have guidelines for implementing APDMs, the programmatic approach to APDMs is still relatively new. Programmatic approaches to APDMs also vary across agencies. Texas DOT (TxDOT) exemplifies a highly formalized framework, with regularly updated guidance such as the D-B programmatic approach (TxDOT, 2023a, b). In addition, TxDOT provides a comprehensive suite of programmatic resources, including templates for Requests for Qualifications (RFQ), D-B agreements, contract document guides, and references to administrative codes. By contrast, Oregon DOT (ORDOT) delivers its APDM guidance through the Alternative Delivery Section, but the available materials are not yet comprehensive, focusing primarily on policy statements, process overviews, and selected solicitation documents rather than a fully developed programmatic system (ORDOT, 2025). In addition, ODOT provides a D–B Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) matrix that formalizes a programmatic approach to D-B delivery, while comparable role-definition frameworks for other APDMs remain limited or undocumented. Georgia DOT (GDOT) likewise publishes a series of D-B and CM/GC documents; however, the articulation of a programmatic approach is not explicitly emphasized. The available materials tend to focus on procedural aspects of project delivery rather than on establishing a systematic, agency-wide framework. As a result, the guidance remains relatively ambiguous in both scope and intent, offering limited clarity on how D-B practices are institutionalized at the program level (GDOT, 2025a, b). Therefore, current practices among highway agencies in establishing and implementing programmatic approaches to APDMs vary considerably, and the associated benefits and risks remain largely unexplored. This study seeks to address this gap by identifying and analyzing the benefits and risks of programmatic approaches to APDMs.

D-B delivery is characterized by a single contract between a state DOT (i.e. owner agency) and a D-B entity responsible for providing design and construction services. While D-B offers highway agencies a range of options to optimize project delivery, enhance stakeholder collaboration, and improve project outcomes, it still poses various challenges and risks across different state highway agencies (California Department of transportation, 2025; GDOT, 2025a; Molenaar, 2005; Zeynalian et al., 2013).

A progressive D-B method is a variation of D-B in which the design-builder is engaged early in the project development process and then collaborates with the agency to validate the basis of the design and to “progress” toward a final design and associated contract price (Salih et al., 2024). Multiple studies indicate that P-D-B simplifies and lowers procurement costs by significantly reducing the owner's staff time and the need for additional technical support (Gransberg, 2023; Salih et al., 2024). It enhances the owner's flexibility, involvement, and control over the project.

CM/GC project delivery is an integrated team approach to the planning, designing, and constructing a highway project. Under the CM/GC delivery method, the agency selects the designer, the construction manager, and the independent cost estimator. The CM/GC delivery method, while offering benefits such as early contractor involvement and improved constructability reviews, also presents several risks and challenges that agencies must carefully manage (Gransberg, 2014). Agencies unfamiliar with CM/GC may face challenges in adapting their procurement and oversight processes (Chini et al., 2018).

A P3 is a contractual agreement between a public agency and a private entity (or consortium) for the delivery of a transportation project. Private sector involvement in design, construction, finance, operation, and maintenance varies based on the agency's financial priorities, risk allocation, performance needs, and resource availability (FHWA, 2019). P3 offers significant benefits, including enhanced revenue generation, strengthened community relationships, positive social impact, expedited project timelines, and greater flexibility in project delivery. Additional program-level research on U.S. P3s emphasizes that governance challenges intensify over long concession lifecycles as responsibilities, stakeholders, and institutional conditions evolve. Levitt et al. (2014) highlight that discontinuities across planning, design, construction, and operations phases can create “displaced agency” risks, where decisions made early in the project lifecycle shift costs or responsibilities to later phases or different actors. These dynamics underscore why U.S. P3 outcomes depend on coherent, program-level governance structures that span the full lifecycle rather than fragmented, project-specific oversight mechanisms.

The programmatic approach to project management applies to managing multiple interrelated projects under a unified framework to optimize resource allocation, risk management, and efficiency (Molenaar, 2005; Sun et al., 2014). For example, Molenaar (2005) emphasized that successfully managing the capital construction of megaprojects necessitates integrating various human, organizational, technical, and environmental resources. Complexities in engineering and construction often stem from uncertainties regarding the impacts on utilities, environmental mitigation measures, traffic maintenance requirements, and work-hour limitations. To address these challenges, a programmatic approach has been employed to conduct a cost analysis and mitigate associated risks. Similarly, Zeynalian et al. (2013) applied a programmatic framework for risk assessment, simultaneously considering factors such as schedule, cost, and quality risks. While this approach may be practical for specific projects where operational costs are relatively low compared to initial construction expenditures, it requires adaptation for infrastructure projects, as their operational life cycle costs are substantial. Although the programmatic approach enhances efficiency and risk management in construction projects (Molenaar, 2005; Zeynalian et al., 2013), its adoption in APDMs remains limited.

In the US, several highway agencies have developed programmatic documents and guidance manuals that outline their innovative contracting processes and procedures. For example, the TxDOT has used programmatic documentation for its APDMs. The availability of comprehensive and standardized contract templates, covering agreements, general conditions, specifications, performance and measurement tables, baseline inspection requirements, maintenance management plans, and warranty provisions, provides a strong programmatic foundation for successful Design-Build and capital maintenance delivery (TxDOT, 2023a). The programmatic documentation approach to APDMs in the Texas DOT includes a request for qualification (RFQ) and an RFP step. Under the RFQ step, TxDOT releases three primary documents: the RFQ template, the D-B contract term sheet template, and the capital maintenance contract term sheet template. Under the RFP step, TxDOT focuses on three primary programmatic documents: the instruction to proposers' template, D-B contract documents, and capital maintenance contract documents. These programmatic documents serve as a baseline for all procurements related to APDMs, ensuring consistency across the state (TxDOT, 2023b).

The programmatic approach to APDMs in GDOT is conducted through the Office of Innovative Delivery (OID). The OID specializes in managing innovative programs in Georgia's transportation system delivery through D-B, P3, CM/GC, and other creative techniques (GDOT, 2025a). GDOT notes that OID continually seeks opportunities to optimize project expenditures at the programmatic level (GDOT, 2025a). For example, any opportunity for balancing project funding with expenditures will be examined to determine the most desirable project execution path in the D-B program. This programmatic approach enables scenario-based analyses that support selection of delivery strategies achieving the lowest overall cost and the shortest delivery time across the portfolio, thereby contributing to improved project and program outcomes (GDOT, 2025a).

The programmatic approach to APDM in ORDOT involves establishing Alternative Delivery Services (ADS) to facilitate and manage APDM projects. The ADS team supports ORDOT project teams by: providing guidance on APDM selection, coordinating approval processes, supplying solicitation templates, conducting risk/value engineering/constructability reviews, developing policy and contract documentation, and offering APDM training (ORDOT, 2025). Furthermore, prior studies show that agencies with greater experience in P3 and ADPMs tend to develop stronger risk management and performance evaluation capacity (Gransberg et al., 2021). More experienced agencies are likely to have encountered a broader range of procurement, technical, and stakeholder-related challenges, which may contribute to their heightened recognition of project risks and programmatic implementation considerations (Gransberg et al., 2021).

However, limited research has explicitly examined how risk perceptions differ between more experienced and less experienced state agencies. Prior program-level research shows that infrastructure delivery performance depends more on agency-wide governance capacity than on isolated project-level decisions. Foundational work by (Casady et al., 2020; Levitt et al., 2014) frames U.S. P3s delivery as extreme relational contracting, where long lifecycles and fragmented stakeholder involvement create governance risks that cannot be effectively managed through project-specific contracts alone. This literature highlights the need for integrated, lifecycle-oriented programmatic frameworks to support consistency, accountability, and cross-project learning. Building on this foundation, the present study extends program-level governance concepts beyond PPPs to examine how state DOTs institutionalize programmatic approaches across a broader set of APDMs.

Programmatic approaches are needed because APDM projects involve recurring procurement, risk allocation, and stakeholder coordination challenges that extend beyond individual projects. Without program-level guidance, agencies often rely on project-specific decisions, resulting in inconsistent practices and outcomes. Programmatic approaches enable agencies to standardize procedures, transfer lessons learned across projects, and improve organizational capability. As a result, agencies can reduce delivery uncertainty and achieve more consistent cost, schedule, and performance outcomes.

According to the literature review, the benefits and risks of APDMs vary among highway agencies in the US, with each agency implementing different strategies based on its experience, project complexity, and regulatory frameworks. Despite the growing use of APDMs, there is a lack of comprehensive studies on programmatic approaches that standardize and streamline their application across agencies. Therefore, the research compares the benefits and risks associated with programmatic approaches to APDMs for state highway agencies in the US. This study aims to answer three primary research questions (RQs):

1. What are the main factors influencing a programmatic approach to APDM and what benefits do programmatic approaches to APDMs offer in highway projects?

2. What are the risks associated with implementing programmatic approaches to APDMs in highway projects, and how do they practically impact project delivery?

3. Is there a difference in risk perceptions regarding programmatic approaches to APDMs between experienced highway agencies (e.g. agencies that have delivered more than 15 APDM projects) and less experienced highway agencies (e.g. agencies that have delivered less than 15 APDM projects)?

Figure 1 graphically illustrates the overview of the research methodology, including three main steps. Step 1 involves a comprehensive literature review to synthesize existing research on APDMs in highway projects, identifying reported benefits and risks that highway agencies face. This step also establishes research gaps and formulates key research questions. Step 2 focuses on data collection through a national survey of 50 highway agency experts. Step 3 presents the findings and discussion, analyzing the factors influencing APDM programmatic approach adoption and the associated benefits and risks. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare risk perceptions regarding programmatic approaches to APDMs between experienced and less experienced agencies. Furthermore, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed to explore latent patterns among risks associated with APDMs. The following sections discuss each step in detail.

Figure 1 outlines the initial step of investigating the benefits and risks associated with the programmatic approach to APDMs. This involved examining publicly available DOT documents, including implementation manuals, procurement guidelines, standard operating procedures, and programmatic frameworks related to APDMs. The search also included DOT presentations, legislative reports to gain a better understanding of how different states approach the programmatic delivery of D-B, CM/GC, P-D-B, and P3 projects. In addition to state-level resources, the author utilized academic databases, federal transportation research repositories (e.g. the FHWA's Research), and industry publications (e.g. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) reports) to collect relevant literature and supporting references. The survey design was developed through a structured and theory-informed process. Based on an extensive review of prior literature on APDMs, as well as a synthesis of current U.S. DOT guidance documents and implementation reports, the authors identified several areas where knowledge remains limited or inconsistent. In particular, the literature reveals substantial variability in how programmatic approaches to APDMs are defined, developed, and institutionalized across state DOTs. These gaps informed the formulation of focused research questions aimed at examining the institutional, operational, and policy-level challenges that agencies encounter when transitioning from project-level APDM use to a more formalized, programmatic approach. Survey questions were therefore designed to capture expert perspectives on influencing factors, perceived benefits, risks, and implementation practices, with content refined through expert review to ensure clarity and relevance to practice.

A systematic approach was employed to identify 12 factors, 17 benefits, and 17 risks for programmatic approaches to APDMs. The process began with a comprehensive literature review to capture key themes influencing APDM implementation. Subsequently, discussions with state DOT representatives provided practical insights and validated the applicability of the identified items in practice. These lists were further refined during the survey phase, where experts were invited to suggest additions or modifications. The resulting core lists are consistent with prior findings reported by Bypaneni and Tran (2018). The final factors, benefits, and risks are presented in Tables 1–4.

A web-based questionnaire was distributed to collect data for this study. The questionnaire was developed through a comprehensive literature review of programmatic approaches to APDMs (See Appendix A). The survey of 50 highway agency experts was designed to explore the benefits and risks of programmatic approaches to APDMs for highway projects. The 50 highway agency experts surveyed in this study were highly experienced professionals, each with approximately 15–20 years of direct involvement in transportation project delivery. All respondents served as voting members within their respective agencies and were therefore actively engaged in agency-level decision-making related to project delivery and construction management. Through sustained exposure to a wide range of project contexts, these individuals have developed the ability to efficiently identify, interpret, and respond to complex project challenges, consistent with prior research on expert judgment in infrastructure delivery (Poleacovschi and Javernick-Will, 2017).

It also aimed at identifying highway agencies with comprehensive experience in implementing APDMs for further investigation. Additionally, respondents were invited to provide relevant documentation, references, or attachments detailing their agency's use of APDMs. Sample questions included:

1. How many APDM (e.g. D-B, P-D-B, CM/GC, or P3) projects has your agency delivered?

2. Does your agency choose an APDM in the context of the programmatic approach?

3. Rate the importance of the factors influencing programmatic approaches to APDMs at your agency using five-point scales (0 = not applicable or NA; 1 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = moderate; 4 = high; and 5 = very high).

4. For the APDMs applicable to your agency, which benefits have you observed from using programmatic approaches to APDM selection?

5. Rate the impact of each risk factor on the programmatic approach to APDMs at your agency using five-point scales.

The respondents' professional experience collectively spanned all four alternative delivery methods (D-B, P-D-B, CM/GC, and P3), enabling informed evaluation of the factors influencing programmatic adoption, as well as the associated benefits and risks examined in this study. The survey questionnaire was administered electronically and required approximately 15–20 min to complete. It was distributed to voting members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Committee on Construction, which includes the designated construction representative from each of the 50 state highway agencies in the United States. The Likert-scale responses collected through the survey were employed to support in-depth quantitative analysis of perceived risks, benefits, and influencing factors associated with APDM programmatic implementation.

It is important to note that the 50 highway agency experts who participated in the survey were not required to answer all questions. Respondents were instructed to complete only those sections corresponding to delivery methods and topics with which they had direct professional experience. As a result, the number of responses varies across questions and analytical sections, leading to different effective sample sizes (n). Specifically, responses were obtained from 42 experts for factors influencing APDM programmatic approaches; benefits sections received 38 responses for D-B, 19 for P-D-B, 24 for CM/GC, and 20 for P3; and 30 responses were available for the statistical analysis of risks using the Mann–Whitney U test. These variations reflect eligibility based on experience rather than missing data or survey attrition. PCA was also successfully applied to the available dataset, with standard diagnostic tests confirming its appropriateness despite differing response counts across sections.

The data collected from Step 2 was screened and analyzed to answer the three aforementioned research questions related to a programmatic approach to implementing APDM. First, key factors influencing the adoption of APDMs in a programmatic approach were examined. It then shows the benefits of programmatic APDM implementation (for RQ1). For the RQ2, the rating of 17 risk factors on programmatic approaches to APDMs was evaluated using an aggregated weighted score (WS) calculated using Equation (1):

Where WS_j = The weighted score of the factor j; n_ij = The total number of responses to the factor j associated with the rating r_i; r_i = The rating of the factor.

This study applied principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of the risk variables and to identify latent structures underlying the observed data. Prior to conducting PCA, it is important to assess whether the dataset satisfies the assumptions required for factor extraction. Sampling adequacy was evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure, which assesses the proportion of common variance among variables and determines whether the correlation patterns are suitable for dimensionality reduction. The KMO statistic ranges from 0 to 1, with values above 0.50 generally considered acceptable for exploratory PCA applications (Hair et al., 2019). To improve the robustness of the analysis, individual KMO values were examined, and variables with inadequate sampling adequacy were iteratively removed until an acceptable overall KMO value was achieved.

Following this screening process, the final dataset yielded an overall KMO value of 0.604, indicating an acceptable level of shared variance among the retained variables and suggesting that PCA could be appropriately applied. In addition, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was conducted to determine whether the correlation matrix significantly differed from an identity matrix. The test was statistically significant (p = 0.00049), rejecting the null hypothesis of uncorrelated variables and confirming that sufficient interrelationships exist among the variables to justify PCA. Together, these diagnostic results indicate that the retained risk variables contain meaningful underlying correlation structures suitable for identifying latent risk dimensions through principal component analysis.

The formula for the KMO test is:

1. $MOj=∑i≠jrij2∑i≠jrij2+∑i≠ju$ Where: R = [r_ij] is the correlation matrix,

2. U = [u_ij] is the partial covariance matrix,

3. Σ = summation notation (“add up”).

To address RQ3, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare risk perceptions regarding programmatic approaches to APDMs between experienced highway agencies (Group 1) and less experienced highway agencies (Group 2). Group 1 includes highway agencies that have delivered 15 or more APDM projects (n = 21). Group 2 includes highway agencies that have delivered less than 15 APDM projects (n = 9).

Table 2 shows factors influencing programmatic approaches to APDMs based on the 42 highway agency responses. The top five factors that have a considerable impact (i.e. WS > 2.5) on the programmatic approach to APDM are (1) accelerated schedule, (2) technical complexity of groups of projects, (3) streamlined processes/innovation, (4) third-party issues and (5) project and program risk management. These results align with the study conducted by Mostaan and Ashuri (2017), which reported similar trends in the benefits of APDM projects. In fact, the Georgia DOT considers the following factors to identify projects that are candidates for a CM/GC delivery method: public interest, innovation, risk, design complexity, cost control, construction schedule optimization, expected benefits from project delivery or issuance of multiple work packages (GDOT, 2025b). Notably, in cases where MnDOT authorizes funding within a short time frame, APDMs offer a mechanism to expedite project execution, highlighting the importance of accelerated schedules and streamlined processes.

Similarly, the WSDOT indicated that they prioritize delivery time as a key criterion for project success. If a project is delivered on schedule and stakeholder expectations are met, it is typically deemed successful. However, this qualitative assessment approach has prompted interest in integrating more quantitative evaluation methods, especially in light of recent concerns about cost performance, where some APDM projects have exceeded the engineer's estimate by over ten percent. These insights reinforce the critical role of managing technical complexity, risk, and cost performance in evaluating and advancing programmatic APDM strategies. The congruence between actual practices and the factors identified in the analysis enhances the study's rigor and underpins its practical relevance for highway agencies contemplating the APDM programmatic implementation.

Table 3 shows the main benefits of programmatic approaches to the most common APDMs. It is important to note that the 42 state DOT respondents were not required to respond to all questions in the survey. As a result, the sample size (n) of each question varies. Table 3 also shows the number of responses for each APDM programmatic approaches, with sample sizes varying due to the nature of the survey of 50 highway agency experts. Specifically, 38 agencies responded for D-B, 19 for P-D-B, 24 for CM/GC, and 20 for P3. The top five benefits of using programmatic approaches to the D-B delivery method include (1) flexibility in delivery schedule (Chini et al., 2018); (2) greater and/or earlier cost certainty (Chini et al., 2018); (3) flexibility in innovation; (4) managing and leveraging resources; and (5) effectively managing changes or cost savings. The top five benefits of using programmatic approaches to progressive D-B include (1) better managing risk and uncertainty; (2) flexibility in delivery schedule (Salih et al., 2024); (3) effectively managing changes; (4) managing and leveraging resources (Salih et al., 2024); and (5) greater and/or earlier cost certainty (Salih et al., 2024).

The top benefits of using programmatic approaches to CM/GC include (1) effectively managing changes; (2) better managing risk and uncertainty (Gransberg, 2014); (3) flexibility in innovation; (4) greater and/or earlier cost certainty; and (5) flexibility in delivery schedule. Finally, the top five benefits of using programmatic approaches to P3 include (1) greater partnership between the public and private sectors; (2) more choices in funding and delivery methods; (3) better managing risk and uncertainty (Mostaan and Ashuri, 2017); (4) flexibility in innovation (Mostaan and Ashuri, 2017); and (5) greater and/or earlier cost certainty or flexibility in delivery schedule.

One of the key advantages of implementing programmatic approaches to APDMs is flexibility in the delivery schedule. This flexibility is highly valuable, as it empowers highway agencies to customize the delivery of APDMs based on specific project timelines, unique client requirements, and any unforeseen changes that may arise throughout the process. To highlight benefits, one expert noted: “APDMs are useful in programming large or multi-facetted projects. APDMs provide flexibility in design and allow for innovation to minimize the owner's risk.” To enhance the efficiency of project delivery, it is crucial to align the provision of APDMs with the dynamic requirements of DOT initiatives and the expectations of DOT stakeholders (Alleman et al., 2016). Mostaan and Ashuri (2017) indicated that one of the most significant benefits of their APDM program is the increased flexibility it provides in project delivery. Specifically, they highlighted the ability to overlap design and construction steps, which allows for adjustments and faster decision-making as project conditions evolve.

Mostaan and Ashuri (2017) also emphasized that APDMs enhance financial risk management by enabling more strategic allocation of financing risks based on parties' risk tolerance and information asymmetry. By distributing financing risks across private partners, subcontractors, and insurance (surety) providers, APDMs reduce the financial burden on a single entity, improve risk diversification, and strengthen overall partnership stability and project delivery success.

Table 4 shows the risk score of 17 risk factors for the programmatic approach to APDMs in highway infrastructure projects. Certain risks pose challenges that must be addressed to ensure the successful APDM programmatic implementation. The top five risks of programmatic approaches to APDMs include (1) utility issues, (2) environmental permits and approvals, (3) schedule and phasing issues, (4) coordination with government agencies or other authorities having jurisdiction, and (5) change in scope.

In most case, it is reasonable to expect that programmatic approaches exert comparable influence across different APDs, since they provide standardized processes and oversight mechanisms that apply regardless of the delivery method. For example, a programmatic approach can mitigate utility-related risks in both D-B and CM/GC by ensuring early utility coordination, consistent stakeholder engagement, and clearly defined responsibilities across projects.

1. Utility issues: The findings of this study align with those reported by Ellis and Thomas (2003), who indicated unidentified utility relocations as the most critical delay factor in highway construction projects. Their research emphasized that state highway agencies and contractors consistently cited utility-related issues as a major source of delays in highway construction (Taylor et al., 2021).

2. Environmental permits and approvals: Shabana and Gad (2023) highlighted several recurring factors that contribute to claims and disputes in P3 transportation projects, such as staffing shortages, delays in obtaining governmental approvals, and unanticipated site conditions. Among the environmental risks, the responsibility for securing necessary environmental permits and approvals, excluding those explicitly identified elsewhere in the case study contract of a highway improvement project in California ($790 million), was assigned to the project owner. This allocation reflects the inherent challenges faced by owners in navigating complex regulatory frameworks and securing timely environmental clearances.

3. Schedule and phasing issues: In D-B projects, schedule performance is influenced by the procurement strategy, particularly the method used to select the contractor. When a low-bid selection approach is applied, there is a heightened risk of engaging contractors who may lack the capacity to accurately forecast schedules or manage project phasing effectively. This can lead to unrealistic timelines, coordination challenges, and subsequent delays during project execution (Bypaneni and Tran, 2018).

4. Coordination with government agencies or other authorities having jurisdiction: These issues represent a substantial risk in transportation projects, particularly within the P3 delivery method, as delays in obtaining required governmental approvals can significantly disrupt project progress. Challenges in interagency coordination may lead to prolonged schedules, escalated costs, and an increased likelihood of conflicts among project stakeholders (Mostaan and Ashuri, 2017; Shabana and Gad, 2023).

5. Change in scope: Scope changes are a major risk, often causing added complexity and schedule delays in large projects. Our findings align with Bypaneni and Tran (2018), who reported a strong correlation (0.569) between scope definition risk and delivery delays. Practically, this underscores the need for comprehensive scope development in the preconstruction phase, supported by early contractor involvement, clear scope documents, and rigorous change management.

When asked about lessons learned regarding benefits and risks (See list of question in appendix B), one expert emphasized: “Implementing standard procedures is difficult due to limited staff availability. APDM staff have rare expertise, but are busy developing and implementing projects, so programmatic efforts, though extremely beneficial, are often deferred due to more urgent demands.”

Table 4 also shows the result of Mann-Whitney U test to compare risk perceptions regarding programmatic approaches between experienced agencies and less experienced agencies. Market conditions and staff experience/availability showed statistically significant differences between the two groups. Market condition risk was rated significantly higher by experienced agencies (mean = 3.29) than by those with less experience (mean = 2.12), with a p-value of 0.0071. This suggests that agencies with experience in delivering APDMs are more aware of market-related risks, possibly due to increased exposure to fluctuating labor markets and material prices in alternative delivery environments. Practically, this finding implies that as agencies advance in APDM adoption, they should develop more strategies for managing market volatility, including flexible contracting mechanisms, escalation clauses, early engagement with industry, and dynamic risk-sharing approaches. For less experienced agencies, these agencies should consider proactively learning from more experienced peers, integrating lessons about market behavior into their project planning and risk assessment processes.

Next, staff experience/availability risk was rated significantly higher by agencies with less experience in delivering APDM projects (mean = 3.44) compared to those with experienced agencies (mean = 2.71), with a p-value of 0.0297. This suggests that agencies with limited APDM use are more concerned about internal staffing capabilities, which may hinder their ability to adopt or scale APDM practices. This finding underscores a critical internal challenge faced by less APDM-experienced highway agencies, the lack of personnel with the necessary expertise to manage the complexities of alternative contracting methods. Limited staff capacity and insufficient familiarity with APDM procurement processes, risk allocation, and oversight requirements may hinder their ability to adopt or scale up such methods. These concerns reflect structural and institutional readiness gaps, which must be addressed through workforce development, knowledge transfer, and targeted training programs (Kalach et al., 2020). For other identified risks, Table 4 shows that the differences in mean values between the two groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05). This includes risks due to changes in scope, coordination with government agencies, constructability issues, environmental permits, and legal challenges.

Initially, 17 risk factors associated with APDMs were identified and included in the analysis. Several risk variables exhibited individual KMO values below the recommended threshold of 0.50, indicating limited sampling adequacy (Hair et al., 2019). Accordingly, the model was refined by removing these variables, resulting in a final set of 14 risk factors (Table 5). The refined PCA model achieved an overall KMO value of 0.604, confirming acceptable sampling adequacy and supporting the validity of the PCA-based analysis. The five principal components represent distinct configurations of project risk, each named to reflect the risk categories with the largest absolute loadings, as shown in Figure 2.

PC₁ (Financial–Schedule–Political Pressure) is dominated by financial issues (F), schedule and phasing constraints (S), and political risks or opposition (P), indicating a broad project-level pressure where cost, time, and external stakeholder factors jointly influence outcomes. PC₂ (Institutional Coordination and Procurement Uncertainty) is driven primarily by coordination with authorities having jurisdiction (C₄), the use of new procurement methods or contracts (U), and market conditions (M), capturing uncertainty arising from institutional interfaces and delivery-system novelty. PC₃ (Technical Definition and Constructability Risk) is characterized by conformance with regulations and design criteria (C₂), constructability issues (C₃), and incomplete project scope or design uncertainty (I), reflecting technical readiness and definition quality. PC₄ (Project Readiness and Access Constraints) is dominated by right-of-way and easement issues (R), market conditions (M), and incomplete scope (I), highlighting risks that affect a project's ability to proceed smoothly into construction. PC₅ (Permitting–Constructability–Market Interaction) is primarily influenced by environmental permits and approvals (E), constructability issues (C₃), and market conditions (M), indicating risk interactions between external approvals, construction feasibility, and economic conditions.

Together, these components demonstrate that project performance is shaped by configurations of interacting risks rather than isolated factors, supporting a rubric-based approach to risk classification. High exposure to Financial–Schedule–Political Pressure (PC₁) suggests the need for early cost contingencies, realistic scheduling, and proactive stakeholder engagement. Elevated Institutional Coordination and Procurement Uncertainty (PC₂) highlights the importance of interagency alignment and procurement readiness prior to delivery. Technical Definition and Constructability Risk (PC₃) underscores the value of thorough design development, constructability reviews, and regulatory compliance before construction. Project Readiness and Access Constraints (PC₄) indicate that resolving right-of-way, market availability, and scope completeness early can reduce downstream disruptions. Finally, Permitting–Constructability–Market Interaction (PC₅) emphasizes aligning environmental approval timelines with constructability planning and market conditions. For transportation agencies, these findings can be translated into a practical risk-screening framework during project development. Agencies can evaluate projects against the five identified risk factors and use the resulting risk profile to determine the most suitable delivery strategy, level of oversight, and allocation of staff and financial resources before procurement. In addition, agencies can incorporate these risk factors into program-level guidance and decision-support tools to enhance project and program performance. By focusing resources on the dominant risk categories identified during planning, agencies can improve project readiness, reduce delivery uncertainty, and increase the likelihood of achieving cost, schedule, and performance objectives across their transportation programs.

The research employed a literature review, a nationwide survey of 50 state highway agency experts. The survey, distributed to AASHTO's Committee on Construction, received a strong response rate of 82% (42 states). A Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare risk perceptions of programmatic APDM approaches between more experienced and less experienced agencies. The survey results indicated that the benefits of implementing APDM programmatic approaches vary among highway agencies, depending on the APDM used. The top five benefits of implementing APDMs include (1) better management of risk and uncertainty, (2) flexibility in delivery schedule, (3) flexibility in innovation, (4) greater and/or earlier cost certainty, and (5) effective management of changes. On the other hand, the top five risks of programmatic approaches to APDMs include (1) utility issues, (2) environmental permits and approvals, (3) schedule and phasing issues, (4) coordination with government agencies or other authorities having jurisdiction, and (5) change in scope.

Moreover, for the majority of the 17 identified risk factors, the differences in mean values between the two groups, agencies with fewer than 15 APDM projects and those with 15 or more APDM projects, were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). However, two specific risks, market conditions and staff experience/availability, exhibited statistically significant differences, suggesting that agencies with greater APDM experience may have developed enhanced capacity to manage market-driven risks and staffing challenges.

The findings of this study have important practical implications for highway agencies and policymakers aiming to enhance the effectiveness of programmatic approaches to APDMs in the US. Identifying utility issues, environmental permits and approvals, schedule and phasing, interagency coordination, and scope changes as the top five risks underscores the need for proactive risk management strategies during the early stages of project development. Agencies should consider establishing standardized protocols for utility coordination, streamlining environmental review processes, and improving interagency communication frameworks. Additionally, integrating robust scope control measures and realistic phasing plans can mitigate delays and cost escalations. By addressing these recurring risks programmatically, highway agencies can improve the predictability and performance of APDM projects, ultimately leading to more efficient project delivery and better alignment with stakeholder expectations. For state DOTs, the PCA results indicate that APDM performance depends on managing groups of interrelated risks rather than isolated issues, enabling agencies to use these groupings as an early screening tool to guide readiness assessments and mitigation priorities.

The first limitation of this study is that, while it identifies and documents the benefits and risks of programmatic approaches to APDMs in the US, it does not provide comprehensive guidance on how to effectively implement and sustain such approaches. Future research should focus on developing standardized templates, decision-making frameworks, and implementation guidelines to enhance consistency in APDM execution. The second limitation stems from the complexity of APDM implementation, which requires shifts in agency mindset, internal process, and contract structure changes that may not be feasible for all agencies due to varying capacities and resources. Lastly, this research specifically targets highway agencies within the US, reflecting the regulatory environment, institutional practices, and programmatic approaches unique to the US transportation sector. The findings may also have limited applicability in international contexts, where governance structures, procurement policies, and infrastructure delivery models differ significantly.

The authors acknowledge and appreciate the information provided by the staff members of the numerous state highway agencies who assisted with this study.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.