Case Study: Cost Overrun from Design Changes and Scope Creep on Denver RTD Rail Expansion (Denver, CO, 2017)

Project Overview
• Name: Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) Rail Expansion
• Location: Denver, Colorado
• Year: 2017
• Project Size: $1.2 billion
• Scope: Expansion of commuter rail lines including stations and track work
• Lead Agencies/Contractors: Denver RTD /

Category of the Issue, Problem, or Challenge
• Design Management
• Cost Management

Summary of the Issue, Problem, or Challenge
Multiple design changes and additions requested by stakeholders during construction led to scope creep, driving up costs and delaying project completion.

Root Cause Analysis

• Stakeholder Changes: Late design revisions from community and political stakeholders.
• Inadequate Scope Definition: Initial project scope lacked clear boundaries and change management.
• Contract Flexibility: Contracts allowed changes without strict cost and schedule controls.
• Weak Change Control Process: Insufficient formalized procedures to evaluate and approve changes.

Impacts Due to the Issue, Problem, or Challenge

• Cost overruns exceeding 25% of original budget.
• Schedule extensions of up to 18 months.
• Increased complexity in project management and reporting.

Corrective Actions Taken

1. Strengthened change management protocols with formal approval workflows.
2. Early and continuous stakeholder engagement to finalize scope before construction.
3. Contracts revised to include stricter controls on scope changes and cost impact evaluations.
4. Enhanced project monitoring and reporting to detect scope creep early.

Lessons Learned

• Clear scope definition and stakeholder alignment prior to construction are vital.
• Formalized change control reduces unplanned cost and schedule impacts.
• Transparent communication helps manage stakeholder expectations.

Audit & Prevention: Project Control Questions to Ask on Future Projects to Help Control the Situation

• Is project scope fully defined and documented before construction?
• Are formal change control procedures in place and enforced?
• Are stakeholder inputs managed proactively to avoid late-stage changes?