1 / 24

The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Boston, Massachusetts

Capital Program Implementation Through Construction Management at Risk Delivery Methods- An Owner’s Perspective. The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Boston, Massachusetts. H. Sleiman, P.E., CCM Director, Capital Programs and Environmental Affairs. Definition of Massport.

twila
Download Presentation

The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Boston, Massachusetts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Capital Program Implementation Through Construction Management at Risk Delivery Methods-An Owner’s Perspective The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Boston, Massachusetts H. Sleiman, P.E., CCM Director, Capital Programs and Environmental Affairs

  2. Definition of Massport • Massport is an independent authority governed by a board of directors, appointed by the state’s governor • Massport owns and operates • Boston-Logan International Airport • Hanscom Field, Bedford, MA • Worcester Airport • Conley Container Terminal • Black Falcon Cruiseport • Various real estate assets

  3. Overview • Rolling 5-Year Program • Developed through Comprehensive and Coordinated Merit Process to Meet the Authority’s Priorities of: • Safety • Security • Operational Efficiencies • Sustainability • Customer Services • Reflects Current Financial Constraints • Limits Increases to the Rates and Charges

  4. Proposed FY10-14 Capital Program Total Projects Massport Funds: CFC Funds: Private Funds: Contingent On Funding Source (CFS) Projects: Unfunded: FY10-14 379 $737M $271M $46M $431M $585M

  5. Spending Distribution By Facility(Does Not Include CFS, Private Capital) FY10-14 Agency-wide Hanscom Field Logan Airport Maritime Worcester Airport 4.6% 1.8% 85.6% 7.6% 0.4% $46M $18M $865M $77M $4M

  6. By Category

  7. Capital Programs Statistics • Average Annual Number of Construction Awards • Average Total Per Year • Average Annual Number of Consultant Awards • Average Total Per Year 44 $150 M 41 $48 M

  8. Program implementation prior to legislation passed on July 19, 2004, project delivery method was “Design – Bid – Build” Project Delivery Method Traditional Design – Bid – Build • CONS • Contractor Qualifications • Adversarial Relationship • Claims / Litigation Mentality • Quality • Additional Oversight Costs PROS Familiarity Owner Friendly Contract Language Price Competition Lowest Initial Cost

  9. Design-Bid-Build Internal Resources • Standard Contract Documents • Standard Procedures/Guidelines • Clear Project Expectations • Simple Contract Negotiations • Minimal Legal Involvement • Minimal Project Controls • Simple Accounting Interface • M/W/DBE Compliance

  10. Project Delivery MethodCM at Risk Guaranteed Maximum Price PROS • Qualified Contractor • Professional Working Relationship   • Team Collaboration /Realignment During Project • Cost, Schedule, Quality Control Experience • Pre-Construction Services Program implementation post-legislation passed on July 19, 2004, project delivery method was “Design – Bid – Build” • Allows CM at Risk for vertical projects valued at $5M or above • Allows for Design Build for horizontal projects valued at $5M and above CONS  • Lack of Familiarity   • Develop or Select Contract Documents  • Additional Procurement Time  • Higher Initial Bid Price

  11. CM at Risk Internal Resources • New Contract Documents • Increased Contract Negotiations • Lack of Standard Procedures • Increased Legal Involvement • Increased Procurement Involvement/Time • Increased Project Controls Support • Contingency – Mine or Yours?

  12. Change in Implementation • Central Garage Addition and Renovations • $200M Value • CM: Turner Construction • New Terminal A • $500M Value • CM: Skanska • New Prescott Street Pumping Station • $12M Value • CM: O’Connor • Terminal B Garage Renovations • $55M Value • CM: Consigli Projects Completed or Ongoing Since Legislative Change: • Economy Parking Deck • $17M Value • CM: Turner Construction • Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRAC) • $250M Value • CM: TBD • New Bus Maintenance Facility • $20M Value • CM: TBD • Rehabilitation of Aircraft Hangars • $18M Value • CM: TBD

  13. CM Selection Process • Task 0: Retain a Qualified Designer that has Good Experience in CM at Risk Project Implementation • Task 1: Retain a Qualified CM Owner Representative (either from a Consultant/Designer Team or Independent CM) • Task 2: Pre-qualify CM at Risk Teams • Experience with similar work • Project team members and management • Safety records including OSHA violations and not just the EMR • Financial stability • Etc. • Task 3: Issue RFP to Short-listed CM at Risk Teams • 20% - 30% preliminary design documents • Pre-construction contract form • Master construction agreement form • General provisions • Special provisions

  14. RFP Requested Information • Technical Proposal • Scope of pre-construction services • Critical path schedule • Assumption and qualifications • Description of technical challenges • Value engineering ideas and schedule enhancements • Routine information: surety letter, prevailing wages, etc.

  15. Price Proposal • Preconstruction Phase (hours X rate X multiplier) • General Condition: (Project Management Staffing) • General Requirement: Direct Cost from Document Reproduction, Insurance and Bonds, to Quality Control and Lab Fees, Etc. • Construction Contingencies • Fee • “Good Faith Estimate” (GFE) regarding Construction Cost • Project Duration Cash Flow and General Conditions Spending Charts

  16. Proposal Evaluation • Technical Proposal • Project understanding • Technical challenges and proposed solution • Assumption and qualification • Value engineering ideas • Etc. • Price Proposal • Mulitiplier • Personnel • Fee • Breakdown of GFE • Comparison between proposals

  17. Case Study – Massport Terminal B Garage CM at Risk Project The Project Involves: • Drainage Improvements • Structural Strengthening • Lighting Replacement • Upper and Lower Roadway • Replacement • Waterproofing • Installation of Photovoltaics • Expansion Joint Replacement • Modernization of Elevator Lobbies

  18. Process • Advertised for CM Qualifications • Review of Nine Qualification Packages led to Six Companies being Shortlisted • Requested Technical Proposals and GFE from Shortlisted Companies • Selected Three Firms to be Interviewed based on Proposals and GFE • Selected Consigli Construction Company Based on Interviews and Evaluation of Proposals

  19. Owner Benefits of CM Selection Process • Gained Insight to Possible Areas of Conflict within the Project • Evaluated Potential Solutions to Identified Conflicts • Confirmed Reasonableness of Preliminary Cost Estimates ($52 million) • Identified Areas where Additional Field Investigation/Field Mock-up would be Useful • Team Approach helped to Minimize Owner Exposure for Unknown Conditions by Establishing Contingency Costs (Signage, Bollard Relocation, Asphalt Escalation)

  20. TERMINAL B - CM PHASE II PROPOSALS - CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY *Skanska % fee and written in fee differed by approx. $4,000

  21. TERMINAL B - CM PHASE II PROPOSALS - CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARYGOOD FAITH CONSTRUCTION COST

  22. Successes of CM at Risk for Terminal B Garage Project • Through Outreach to Subcontractors, Received Favorable Pricing on Many Items (Electrical, PV, Site Work) • Preliminary Demolition of CMU Block Walls allowed Subcontractors to Examine the Physical Conditions Prior to Bidding • Mock-up of LED Lighting Units allowed for Full Evaluation of Various Systems prior to Finalizing Specifications • Savings on Pricing (approximately $6.5 M) allowed for Flexibility to Double the Number of Solar Trees

  23. Successes of CM at Risk for Terminal B Garage Project (cont’d) • Items in Second Phase of the Project advanced to the First Phase thereby avoiding Re-work in the Same Area • Collaboration between Designer and CM helped to Improve Specifications for Better Scope Definition Between Disciplines • Collaborative Approach helped Develop Scheduling, Phasing and Code Solutions that were Responsive to Field Conditions and Owner/Passenger Needs

  24. Final Note Train your Internal Staff, Project Managers, in Construction Management and Have them Certified. “C.C.M.”

More Related