Occasionally, a situation arises in which the problems of structural conditions, public exposure, and/or environmental impact seem to exceed the capabilities of the usual bridge designs. In Switzerland, Germany, and France, such situations are often resolved by holding engineering design competitions. In these competitions, appearance is made an explicit criterion, along with performance and cost. The competition attracts outstanding engineers who develop designs that are often much better than would otherwise be seen. Because of that fact, and because the community can get involved in picking from alternatives, the competition often successfully resolves stubborn controversies.

[Images from a successful design competition.]

The designs also have influence beyond the competition. The concepts influence subsequent projects at other sites, and thus influence the development of the profession. With appearance as an explicit criterion, competitions have proved instrumental in sensitizing engineers to aesthetics and to raising the general level of bridge appearance in countries that use them.

In the United States, unfortunately, competitions are rare. Most U.S. agencies resolve controversial bridge projects by a costly, time-consuming process. They develop successive alternative designs until one is found that the public will support. In contrast, Maryland has successfully resolved two controversial bridge replacements for the Severn River adjoining the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis and for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge over the Potomac River at Washington, DC by holding engineering design competitions.

[Images of Severn River Bridge and Woodrow Wilson Bridge]

The rules for the two competitions were similar and were based on the European model, though with a larger role for public groups and elected officials than is customary in Europe. The competition’s prize was significant: The winning design firm was contracted to perform the final design for the bridge. In addition, a certain amount of prize money was awarded to first, second and third place proposals.

There are six rules that must be followed to make a bridge competition viable:

1. The proposal documentation and the selection itself must be anonymous. The goal is to find the best design for this site, not the firm that happened to impress on a previous project;
2. The submission must have sufficient engineering detail for the performance, buildability and cost of the proposal to be analyzed. This requires some calculation, sizing of main members and a cost estimate as well as appropriate technical drawings;
3. The Contestants should be limited to three to five firms in order to make the competition manageable and attractive to the contestants. The contestants can be selected through a review of qualifications. Occasionally owners have attempted to select a short list (or a design) through a very simplified open-to-all-comers design competition. These almost never work because the schemes themselves and/or their authors are technically suspect. In other words, the winner can’t be built.
4. In order to gain their participation contestants must be given a stipend commensurate with their costs. While all firms expect to expend a certain amount of marketing money to gain a project, these sums are not sufficient to prepare a competition entry, which is essentially a 10-15% design submission. For the Woodrow Wilson Bridge competition in 1998, a $600 m bridge, the contestants were given stipends of $125,000. Competition for smaller bridges might do with less, after adjusting for inflation.
5. The jury must include as voting members one or more experienced bridge engineers as well as a representative of the owner. If the bridge is controversial, individuals representing the various aspects of the controversy should also be on the jury.
6. The jury should be advised by technical panels that review the proposals in advance (also anonymously) and provide non-binding comments to the Jury. For example, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge had a construction panel with experienced contractors who focussed on buildability and the cost estimate, an engineering panel with experienced bridge engineers from several disciplines that focussed on design issues and an urban design and historical analysis panel that was staffed with representatives of the local planning departments and review agencies. Members of these panels should not also serve on the Jury.

The architecture profession has a set of standard guidelines for design competitions. These do not work well for bridges. The technical aspects of a bridge are central to its success. The standard guidelines for architectural competitions do not give sufficient weight to these aspects.