minnesota department of transportation l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Minnesota Department of Transportation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Minnesota Department of Transportation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 65

Minnesota Department of Transportation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 246 Views
  • Uploaded on

Minnesota Department of Transportation. Design-Build Introduction Program. Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department of Transportation. November 30, 2000. Arizona’s New Design-Build Law and Experience. Purpose.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Minnesota Department of Transportation' - betty_james


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
minnesota department of transportation

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Design-Build Introduction Program

Ron Williams, PE

State Construction Engineer

Arizona Department of Transportation

November 30, 2000

purpose
Purpose

The Arizona Department of Transportation Desires to Have the Design-Build Process Available to Use Whenever an Opportunity or Need Arises to Construct a Project Quickly to Reduce Public Inconvenience.

arizona department of transportation design build procurement and administration policy
Arizona Department of Transportation Design-Build Procurement and Administration Policy

To establish the department’s process for procuring and administering the highway design or facility and construction services within one contract. The process will clearly delineate all known data to keep the unknown risk transfer to the design-build firm to a minimum, thereby producing the most economical project. The purpose of the process is to provide a substantial fiscal benefit or accelerated delivery schedule for transportation projects.

Partnering — Working together to solve problems is a must for design-build to be successful.

why use design build
Why Use Design-Build?
  • Speed!! To Complete a Project Where There is Need for Immediate Improvement
  • Example:
    • Large Traffic Volume Increases
    • Safety
    • Area Growth
    • Over-Loaded Freeways
  • Funding Must Be Available in the Five-Year Program for the Design-Build Contracting Method to Be Considered
reasons for design build
Reasons for Design-Build
  • Earlier Completion
  • Permits Phase Work
  • Allows Concurrent Operations
  • Encourages Joint Contractor/Engineer Planning
  • Permits Innovative Financing
  • Single Source Responsibility
adot project scheduling comparison
ADOT Project Scheduling Comparison

Initial Design Concept & EIS

Design

Traditional (Design-Bid-Build)

ROW

Bid

Utility Clearance

Construction

Months

4

8

12

16

Initial Design Concept & EIS

Select Firm

Design-Build (Select-Design-Build)

Design

ROW

Utility Clearance

Time Savings

Construction

constraints and threats to design build
Constraints and Threats to Design-Build

Lack of Experience and Expertise within Owner organizations to administer and manage this deliver method, while supporting a “fast-track” Project Schedule.

Design-Build project delivery assigns new responsibilities to the contracting parties, and many Owner organizations are not prepared to operate differently than they have under the Design-Bid-Build approach. Since the Design-Builder is the Engineer of Record, he has some latitude to make changes in the design as long as it still meets Project requirements as outlined in the Prime Contract.

constraints and threats to design build9
Constraints and Threats to Design-Build

Many Owners want total control over all those changes, and the right to impose their own standards on all design that the Design-Builder may develop. This defeats the purpose of the Design-Build Approach.

In addition, it’s difficult for many Owner organizations to redirect their staff efforts toward supporting the Design-Build. Design-Build must have close cooperation, a supportive environment and a risk sharing approach between the Owner and the Design-Builder.

studied and modified other plans
Studied and Modified Other Plans
  • 2-Day Training — Design-Build Institute of America — ASU
  • Maricopa County
  • Florida, Utah, Michigan, New Jersey, Alaska, California and North Carolina
  • AGC and American Consulting Engineers
design build authorization
Design-Build Authorization

Senate Bill 1253

ARS 28 1812

One ADOT Project Pima County

One ADOT Project Maricopa County

One Project Maricopa County

1996

process development use existing documents whenever possible
Process Development(Use Existing Documents Whenever Possible)
  • Design Scoping Document
  • Revised Standard Specifications General Conditions
  • Revised Contract Documents
  • Technical (Section 200-1000) Standard Specifications
  • Project Specific Special Provisions
method prescriptive specs performance specs
Method/Prescriptive SpecsPerformance Specs

Design-Build is a Combination of Both

design build development team
Design-BuildDevelopment Team

Deputy State Engineer, Operations

Assistant State Engineer, Construction Group

Assistant State Engineer, Design Group

Assistant State Engineer, Valley Project Management Group

Assistant State Engineer, Statewide Project Management Group

Assistant State Engineer, Support Services Group

Manager, Engineering Consultant Contracts

Manager, Contracts & Specifications Services

Project Manager, Tucson District

Project Manager, Phoenix District

Assistant Attorney General, ADOT Legal

Associated General Contractors

Arizona Consulting engineer Association

Federal Highway Administration

features of 1998 arizona design build law
Features of 1998 Arizona Design-Build Law

Projects Allowed:

  • Department of Transportation 3
  • Department of Administration 2
  • Counties/Cities > 330,000 1 each

Controls:

  • Single Project
  • Minimum Size — 10 Million Dollars
  • Owner Obtains Right-of-Way
  • Owner Obtains Environmental Document
  • Owner Obtains Railroad Approval of Concept Prior to Award
hb 2340 2000 design build law modifications
HB 2340 2000 Design-Build Law Modifications
  • Allows two Design-Build Contracts per year. Must be a single specific project with minimum cost of forty (40) million dollars.
  • All projects must be awarded by June 30, 2007.
  • Requires annual report to legislature on design-build costs and benefits
  • Must announce technical proposal score for each proposer.
  • Specifies at least three But not more than five firms to be on the short list.
  • Mandates the Department to pay a stipend of two-tenths of one percent to each unsuccessful proposer. Unsuccessful proposer may retain his proposal and waive stipend.
arizona s alternative contracting legislation
Arizona’s Alternative Contracting Legislation

HB 2340

2000 Legislative Session

Internet Address

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/laws/0135.htm

i 10 cortaro road interchange reconstruction

1st Project

I-10/Cortaro RoadInterchange Reconstruction

Bid July 1997 $2,760,500

Complete August 1998 $3,714,75*

Completed four months ahead of conventional Design-Bid-Build

Developer contributed $500,000 to cost of project.

*Encountered large areas of unstable subgrade that need to be replaced.

tucson lessons learned
Tucson Lessons Learned
  • Public Involvement Delays (Lost Three Weeks)
    • Two-way vs. One-way
    • Frontage Roads
  • Right-of-Way Delays — Resolved by Working Together
  • Reluctance of Subcontractors to Use Incomplete Plans without Quantities
  • Finished Early By 120 Days
cost analysis
Cost Analysis

Utility and Archeological Investigation $215,948

Wet Subgrade (Changed Condition $554,640

$770,588

Scope and Design Changes

5.7% Over Bid $183,627

Eleven Subcontractors Involved

phoenix black canyon freeway i 17 thomas to peoria corridor improvement

2nd Project

Phoenix Black Canyon FreewayI-17 — Thomas to Peoria Corridor Improvement

Add an HOV Lane for 7.5 Miles

  • Add Auxiliary Lanes at Interchanges
  • Reconstruct and Widen Camelback Road Bridge
  • Reconstruct and Widen Glendale Avenue Bridge
  • Design and Install Lighting and Signs
  • Design and Install Freeway Management System
  • Approximate Cost — $75 Million
  • Anticipated Completion — September 2000*

*One year earlier than ADOT schedule

i 17 history and plan
I-17 History and Plan

Thomas Road Bridge 1992

Indian School Bridge 1996

Dunlap Bridge 1997

Northern Bridge 1998

Bethany Bridge 1998

I-17 Widening at Thomas 1995

I-17 Widening Peoria North 1996

Camelback and Glendale Bridges 2001

Remaining Widening 2004

12 Years — Too Long!!

Let’s Get Done

reasons for selecting this project
Reasons for Selecting This Project
  • Solves Serious Congestion Problem
  • Increases Capacity by 25-30%
  • Completes Reconstruction of I-17 Three Years Sooner than Current Plan
  • Construction and Design Cost Savings Due to Combining Projects and Shortening Time
  • Allows ADOT to Consider Additional HOV Lanes on Other Freeways Sooner
phoenix i 17 lessons learned
Phoenix I-17 Lessons Learned
  • Teamwork is a Must
  • Classification of Roles
  • Preferable to Co-House Team
  • Only 176 Change Orders
  • 4.8 Percent Overrun (3% Value Added by Owner
  • Only Two Minor Issue Escalations
  • State Estimate 900 Days

Completion 603 Days

  • Successful Use of Incentives

$1.7 Million Dollars Motorist Delay Savings

design build typical team composition
Design-Build Typical Team Composition

Design Firms

Contractor

Prime Subcontractors

1 2 (P)

1 5 (2P)

1 - (1P)

1 -

1 2 (P)

1 1 (P)

Prime Subcontractors

1 4

1 -

1 3

1 -

1 5

1 3

On the I-17 Project, 36 percent of work is by subcontractors

70 Subcontractors

11 Engineering Firms

i 17 design build incentive performance summary
I-17 Design-Build Incentive Performance Summary

Incentive

Potential Amount

Available

Amount Earned

% of Available

Superior Public Relation

Quality Workmanship

Auxiliary Lanes

Early Median Lighting

Camelback T.I. In 180 Days

Glendale T.I. In 180 Days

AR-ACFC Smoothness

PCCP Strength & Thickness

$150,000

$260,000

$400,000

$300,000

$600,000

$600,000

$1,162,909

$417,989

$150,000

$241,371

$400,000

$300,000

$600,000

$600,000

$487,599

$271,807

100%

93%

100%

100%

100%

100%

42%

65%

change order log
Change Order Log

#

Description

Value

Status/Comments

1

1a

2

3

4

5

6

7

7a

7b

8

9

10

11

11a

11b

12

13

14

15

16

Shoulder widenings in depressed roadway (Northern & Dunlap approved) Seg. 3

Shoulder widenings in depressed roadway Seg.1 & 2 (includes slope paving)

Reconstruct NB offramp at Thomas and NB HOV Lane Start I-10/Thomas

Temporary concrete barrier

Frontage Rd work south of Dunlap/27th Ave (NB & SB) & Dunlap TI Work

Increase in gross receipt tax to 7%

Change in traffic control device - barricade with light to large vertical panel

Glendale Bridge damage SB repair #1 -Truesdell girder repair

Glendale Bridge SB repair #2

Glendale Bridge slab repair - south half

Camelback City of Phoenix improvements

VMS relocation (change order complete ‘no cost’)

Full freeway lighting specification change

Kiewit & Sundt previous I-17 project additional work items & misc. items

Northern additional B22.70 fence for wing extensions

Sawcut/remove SPUI ramp wedge

48” fence

NB Indian School catch basin repair

Spall repair under existing asphalt rubber

Maryland pedestrian bridge pier

Ledge beam removal at Bethany, Northern & Dunlap

Approximate Total

$628,075.00

$1,777,361.00

$895,513.00

$45,468.00

$128,331.00

$99,174.00

$68,718.00

$4,956.50

$4,997.18

$304,604.00

$0.00

$0.00

$165,870.13

$3,606.47

$9,162.78

$86,472.60

$21,802.89

$100,527.64

$4,364,639.99

Finalized C.O. 5

Finalized C.O. 9

Finalized C.O. 12

Finalized C.O. 3

Finalized C.O. 11

Finalized C.O. 7

Finalized C.O. 1

Finalized C.O. 6

Finalized L.A. 3

Finalized L.A. 2

Finalized C.O. 10

Finalized C.O. 2

Finalized C.O. 4

Finalized C.O. 13

Finalized L.A. 1

Finalized C.O. 8

Finalized C.O. 13

Finalized F.A. 1

F.A. 2

F.A. 3

Finalized C.O. 14

16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added

sr 68 davis dam kingman highway bullhead city to golden valley

3rd Project

SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman HighwayBullhead City to Golden Valley
  • Convert Two-Lane to Four-Lane Highway
  • Approximate Cost $45 Million
  • Construction Start April 2000
  • Anticipated Completion November 2001
  • Original Completion July 2004
sr 68 davis dam kingman highway
SR 68Davis Dam - Kingman Highway

Design-Build Firm

Technical

Proposal Score

Price Proposal

Price

Tech. Proposal

Best

Value

Seven Firms Submitted RFQs

Kiewit Western/Parsons Trans

Pulice/AGRA

Sundt/Granite/URS Greiner

Total Points

State Estimate

119.7

105.7

114.6

138

$42,118,780

$38,828,846

$53,701,360

$39,391,360

$42,118,780

119.7

$38,828,846

105.7

$53,701,360

114.6

351,869

367,349

468,598

us 60 superstition freeway

4th Project

US 60/Superstition Freeway
  • Location: Jct I-10 — Val Vista Road
  • Length: 13.5 Miles
  • Features
    • I-10 — US 60 HOV Freeway to Freeway Interchange
    • Median HOV Lanes from I-10 — Val Vista Road (EB & WB)
    • Two Additional General Use Lanes from Loop 101 — Val Vista Road
    • Auxiliary Lanes Between Interchanges
  • Total Cost: $255 Million

$200 Million in FY 00-04 — five-year program

GNS Loans — $100 Million due to 30-36 month construction time

us 60 superstition freeway36
US 60/Superstition Freeway
  • Design-Bid-Build Process:
    • Require minimum four separate construction projects
    • Require 18 month design time, then 18-24 month construction time per project
    • Last segment would advertise in FY04 with completion in FY06

Using Design-Build Process Saves a Minimum of 1 1/2 Years

design bid package proposal contents
Design-Bid PackageProposal Contents
  • Proposal Process

A-I Public Advertisement

A-II Introduction

  • Request for Qualifications
  • Request for Proposal

C-I Final Selection Process

C-II General Requirements

C-III Design Scope of Work

C-IV Technical Specifications

Standard Stored Specs & Special Provisions

(Section100, General Provisions of Specifications have been modified to fit the Design-Build Process)

  • Contract Documents
request for qualifications format us 60 design build project
Request for Qualifications FormatUS 60 Design-Build Project

Part A Introductory Letter N/A 2

Part B Evaluation Criteria 28

1. Project Understanding

& Approach 25

2. Design-Build Project Team 25

3. Proposers Capabilities 25

4. Quality Program 20

5. Safety Program 5

Part C Supportive Information N/A 10

Part D Design-Builder Proposer’s

Information Form N/A 5

Part E Work History Form N/A 5

Total 100 50

technical proposal evaluation criteria design build process
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Design-Build Process

1. Responsiveness to RFP 75 Points

  • Design Management 10 Points
  • Quality Program 20 Points
  • Design Features 15 Points
  • Structure Features 10 Points
  • Overall Schedule & Milestones 6 Points
  • Public Relations Plan 5 Points
  • Geotechnical Investigation 3 Points
  • Lighting 2 Points
  • Signing & Pavement Marking 2 Points
  • Aesthetics & Landscaping 2 Points

2. Innovation 8 Points

  • Constructability 5 Points
  • Miscellaneous 3 Points

3. Construction 35 Points

  • Construction Management 10 Points
  • Maintenance & Protection of Traffic 10 Points
  • Utility Relocation Plans 85 Points
  • Safety Plan 70 Points
i 17 design build team
I-17 Design-Build Team

C & S

Richard Murphy

Quality

Allan Samuels

ECS

Ron Thomas

Partnering

Ginger Murdough

FHWA

Bill Vachon

Project Managers:

Terry Bourland - Development

John Akin - Construction

Materials

George Way

Legal

Joe Acosta

AGC

ACEA

City of Phoenix

Right-of-Way

Dave Edwards

Pete Main

Structures

Jim Pyne

Consultant Engineers

DMJM

Kimley-Horn

Utilities

Vern Pagel

Brad Mortensen

FMS

Manny Agah

Traffic Engineering

Richard Moeur

Sponsors:

Ron Williams - Process/Facilitator

Dan Lance - Construction

Steve Jimenez - Development

adot design build organization
ADOT Design-Build Organization

Responsibilities

Develop Scope

Through

Use of Consultants

ADOT Develop Scope

ADOT Oversight & QA Checking

Design-Build

Develop

Construct

design build short long term organization for i 17 corridor project
Design-Build Short & Long-Term Organization for I-17 Corridor Project

State Engineer

ADOT Development

Project Manager

Terry Bourland

District Construction

Resident Engineer

John Akin

Technical Groups

Design-Build Process

Ron Williams

Technical Groups

adot design build team possible issue resolution structure

Escalation

*Granite Sundt in Yellow

ADOT Design-Build TeamPossible Issue Resolution Structure

Granite-Sundt

Management Board*

Or ADOT

Management Team

State Engineer

District Engineer

Dan Lance

Project Director

Daily Operations

Project Manager

Terry Bourland

ADOT Development Groups

Technical Manager

District Construction

Technical Manager

Quality Manager

Construction

Construction

Manager

Design Manager

Development

Technical Leader

Construction

Technical Leader

Design-Build Process Manager

Ron Williams

Eric Crowe

John Akin

Project Manager coordinates all activities within scope, schedule, budget, parameters.

design team coordination with construction and maintenance staff

Tuesdays (AM)

Wednesday (PM)

Thursdays (AM)

Design Team Meeting

D-B Project Manager

Design Manager

Deputy Design Manager

Chief Roadway Engineer

Design Quality Manager

Construction Quality Manager

Task Leaders (as req’d)

ADOT PM & Other Reps

Design Status Progress

Construction Schedule Meeting

D-B Project Manager

Construction Quality Manager

Construction Manager

Construction Project Engineer

(and staff)

Field Supervisor

Public Relations Manager

Update 5-Week

Construction Schedule

Design-Build Schedule/Quality Meeting

ADOT Resident Engineer

ADOT Project Manager

ADOT Other Reps (as req’d)

D-B Project Manager

Construction Manager

Construction Quality Manager

Safety Manager

Design Manager

DPS/Law Enforcement

Construction Project Engineer

2 Superintendents

1 Field Engineer

Tuesdays (PM)

Thursdays (PM)

Design/Construction Meeting

Design Manager

Deputy Design Manager

Task Leaders (as req’d

Construction Project Engineer

Updated Design Schedule

ADOT Public Relations Meeting

ADOT District PR Rep

D-B Project Manager

Public Relations Manager

Design Manager

Construction Project Manager

MOT Engineer

Regional Traffic Engineer

Updated Public Information

for Release on Friday

Design Team Coordination with Construction and Maintenance Staff
i 17 design build plan review and release process
I-17 Design-Build Plan Review and Release Process

Constructibility Input

Plan Developed by Lead Discipline

Plan Developed by Lead Discipline

Plan Routed to All Other Technical Disciplines and Construction Staff

50% Comment Resolution Meeting

ADOT Attendance & Comment

Plan Revised by Lead Discipline

80% Comment Resolution Meeting

ADOT Attendance & Comment

Constructibility Input

Plan Revised by Lead Discipline

Audit of QC Documentation

Design Team Manager Approves for Construction

Construction Project Engineer Releases Plan for Construction

utilities in the design build process
Utilities in the Design-Build Process

1. ADOT Locates Utilities and Probable Conflicts. Through June 1998

2. ADOT Obtains New R/W on Glendale Avenue and Camelback Road (10’ to12’). No R/W Needed for I-17. Through December 1998

3. ADOT Determines Prior Rights Where Possible. Through December 1998

4. Design-Build Firm Starts Design From Concept Report. Through January 1999

5. Design-Build Firm Determines Utility Conflicts as First Work Item. Through March 1999

relocation process
Relocation Process
  • Design-Build Firm Has Responsibility to Adjust and Relocate Utilities as Needed
  • ADOT Will Pay to Move Utilities with Prior Rights
  • Utilities Will Pay for Betterment
  • Permitted Utilities Will Coordinate Their Move with Design-Build Firm
working relationships
Working Relationships
  • Design by Design-Build Firm
  • Design by Utility Companies
  • Relocation by Design-Build Firm
  • Relocation by Utility or Its Agent Prior to Road Construction
  • Relocation by Utility or Its Agent During Construction
selection process two step
Selection Process — Two Step

Request for Qualifications — Team

Request for Proposal — Technical

best value proposal
Best Value Proposal

Cost

Technical Score

sr 68 evaluation panels short list panel
SR 68 Evaluation PanelsShort List Panel

Panel Member

Section

Qualifications

1. George Wallace, PE

Pre-Design

21+ years with ADOT, PE for 23 years

Pre-Design Section Manager

2. Debra Brisk, PE

Kingman District

16 years with ADOT, PE for 12, years

Kingman District Engineer

3. Julie Trunk

FHWA

11 years with FHWA, non-PE position,

materials background

4. Dee Bowling

Environmental

Planning

10 years with ADOT, non-PE position,

environmental background

5. Mike Bluff

AGC

22 years as a contractor, non-PE position,

24 years in construction

sr 68 evaluation panels technical proposal panel
SR 68 Evaluation PanelsTechnical Proposal Panel

Panel Member

Section

Qualifications

1. Bahram Dariush, PE

S/W Project

Management

15 years with ADOT, PE for 4 years,

SR 68 D-B Design Project Manager

2. Jennifer Livingston,

PE, BSCE, MSE

Kingman District

4 years with ADOT, PE for 1 year,

SR 68 D-B Resident Engineer

3. John Lawson, PE

Materials Section

29 years with ADOT, PE for 25+ years,

materials/geotechnical background

4. Shafi Hasan, PE

Bridge Group

9 years with ADOT, PE for 16+ years,

structures background

5. Tay Dam

FHWA

5 years with ADOT, non-PE position,

environmental background

6. Arif Kazmi, PE

Traffic Group

16 years with ADOT, PE for 14 years,

traffic background

7. Art Brooks, PE

ACEA

18 years as an owner of a design firm,

PE for 26 years

sr 68 design build project
SR 68 Design-Build Project

Overall Ranking by Score Selection

Panel

#1

Panel

#2

Panel

#3

Panel

#4

Panel

#5

Panel

#6

Panel

#7

Firm

Avg

Rank

1. Kiewit Western 105 137 124 130 115 124 103 119.7 1

3. Sundt/Granite 93 115 117 131 122 120 104 114.6 2

2. Pulice 81 103 99 122 106 115 114 105.7 3

Overall Ranking by Rank Order Selection

Panel

#1

Panel

#2

Panel

#3

Panel

#4

Panel

#5

Panel

#6

Panel

#7

Firm

Avg

Rank

1. Kiewit Western 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1.6 1

3. Sundt/Granite 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1.7 2

2. Pulice 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2.7 3

sr 68 design build project57
SR 68 Design-Build Project

Firm: Pulice Rank: 3

Representative:

Panel Composition:

1 Spmg - Phx

2 Kingman District

3 Bridge Group

4 Materials Group

5 ACEA

6 FHWA

7 Traffic

Selection Debriefing

Difference

Max

Pts

Panel

#1

Panel

#2

Panel

#3

Panel

#4

Panel

#5

Panel

#6

Panel

#7

#1

Frim

Evaluation Criteria

Avg

1. Responsiveness to RFP 71 43 58 49 60 54 59 60 54.7 62.7 -8.0

2. Innovation 32 17 19 24 29 25 26 25 23.6 27.0 -3.4

3. Construction 30 19 23 21 29 23 25 25 23.6 26.0 -2.4

4. Oral Interviews 5 2 3 5 4 4 5 4 3.9 4.0 -0.1

Maximum Possible Points (RFP) 138 81 103 99 122 106 115 114 105.7 119.7 -14.0

Rank Orders 3 3 3 3 3 3 1

sr 68 design build project58
SR 68 Design-Build Project

Firm: Kiewit Western Rank: 1

Representative:

Panel Composition:

1 Spmg - Phx

2 Kingman District

3 Bridge Group

4 Materials Group

5 ACEA

6 FHWA

7 Traffic

Selection Debriefing

Max

Pts

Panel

#1

Panel

#2

Panel

#3

Panel

#4

Panel

#5

Panel

#6

Panel

#7

Evaluation Criteria

Avg

1. Responsiveness to RFP 71 55 70 64 66 62 65 57 62.7

2. Innovation 32 22 32 30 30 25 28 22 27.0

3. Construction 30 24 30 27 29 24 26 22 26.0

4. Oral Interviews 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 2 4.0

Maximum Possible Points (RFP) 138 105 137 124 130 115 124 103 119.7

Rank Orders 1 1 1 2 2 1 3

request for qualifications format us 60 design build project59
Request for Qualifications FormatUS 60 Design-Build Project

State Estimate

Kiewit Western Co.

Pulice Construction, Inc.

Sundt/Granite, J.V

Bid Opening: 06/09/00

Bidder

Technical

Proposal

Score (TPS)

Price

Proposal

Adjusted Score

(AS)=

(PP)(TPS)

N/A

119.70

105.70

114.60

$39,391,360

$42,118,780

$38,828,846

$53,701,360

N/A

351,869

367,349

468,598

value items in kiewit proposal
Value Items in Kiewit Proposal
  • Five Segments Permit Early Opening
  • Relocate Bridge to Construct a Square, Not a Skewed Bridge
  • Independent Roadways; Super Elevation Improves Drainage
  • Grade Modification at Union Pass Crest Allows 60 MPH Roadway Instead of 45 MPH
    • Improved Vertical Site Distance
    • Improved Horizontal Sight Distance
review comments sr 68 kiewit proposal
Review Comments — SR 68Kiewit Proposal
  • In-depth understanding
  • Most innovative proposal
  • Stressed BLM relationships
  • Discussed every item
  • Quite innovative in design and construction matters
  • Complete 4 months early. Stop work on Friday at noon
  • Solid construction management approach
  • Clearly understood the impact to traveling public is a major issue
review comments sr 68 pulice agra proposal
Review Comments — SR 68Pulice/AGRA Proposal
  • A lot of unanswered questions
  • Would complete 6 months early
  • All 13 miles under construction at the same time — 2 segments
  • Constructability very brief
  • Organizational plan not clear
  • Lacking technical response in panel interview. Answers unclear
bid tabulations i 17 design build project
Bid TabulationsI-17 Design-Build Project

Engineer

J.D. Abrams, Inc.

Granite/Sundt

Meadow Valley/

Parsons Brinkerhoff

Bid Opening: 11/13/98

Bidder

Technical

Score

Proposed

Days

“A” = Price

Proposal

“B” = Time

Value

“A+B”=

Adjusted Price

“A+B”/TPS=

Adjusted Score

N/A

85.30

88.10

85.90

910

700

609

800

$64,749,450

$89,917,800

$79,729,000

$93,017,800

$14,560,000

$11,200,000

$9,744,000

$12,800,000

$79,309,450

$101,117,800

$89,473,000

$105,817,800

N/A

$1,185,437

$1,015,584

$1,231,871

value items in granite sundt i 17 proposal
Value Items in Granite/Sundt I-17 Proposal
  • Extra Widening for Typical Section
  • Improved NB Transition to H.O.V.
  • Clearly Defined Organization
  • Outside — In Approach Permitted Completion One Year Early
slide65

Cortaro Road Design-Build

I-17 Design-Build

SR 68 Design-Build

Ave

Score

Ave

Score

Ave

Score

Firm

Firm

Firm

1 89

2 87

3 87

4 83

5 81

6 80

7 71

1 88

2 88

3 87

4 84

5 75

1 91

2 90

3 89

4 87

5 83

6 81

7 74

Average

87.6

Average

87.6

Average

90

Short List Process

84.1

to get in

84.1

to get in

86.4

to get in

Ave

Score

Ave

Score

Firm

Firm

1 88.6

2 81.8

3 74.4

1 88.1

2 85.9

3 85.3

Final Selection