Minnesota Department of Transportation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

play fullscreen
1 / 65
Download Presentation
Minnesota Department of Transportation
254 Views
Download Presentation

Minnesota Department of Transportation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department of Transportation November 30, 2000

  2. Arizona’s New Design-Build Law and Experience

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Reasons for Design-Build • Earlier Completion • Permits Phase Work • Allows Concurrent Operations • Encourages Joint Contractor/Engineer Planning • Permits Innovative Financing • Single Source Responsibility

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Design-Build History

  11. 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

  12. Design-Build Authorization Senate Bill 1253 ARS 28 1812 One ADOT Project Pima County One ADOT Project Maricopa County One Project Maricopa County 1996

  13. 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

  14. Method/Prescriptive SpecsPerformance Specs Design-Build is a Combination of Both

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. Arizona’s Alternative Contracting Legislation HB 2340 2000 Legislative Session Internet Address http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/laws/0135.htm

  19. Design-Build Projects

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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%

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. Project Team Organization

  38. 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

  39. ADOT Design-Build Organization Responsibilities Develop Scope Through Use of Consultants ADOT Develop Scope ADOT Oversight & QA Checking Design-Build Develop Construct

  40. 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

  41. 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.

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. Utility Relationships

  45. 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

  46. 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

  47. 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