Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ATCs in DB: Minnesota DOT’s Perspective

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ATCs in DB: Minnesota DOT’s Perspective"— Presentation transcript:

1 ATCs in DB: Minnesota DOT’s Perspective
Key Message MnDOT has been using DB since 1997 and ATCs since 2002. Personally involved with DB projects and ATCs since 2005. MnDOT’s DB Program Manager for the past 2 years. In this position, oversee the ATC process: Sit in on almost all 1 on 1 meetings with the Contractors Review all ATCs and response forms Check for consistency in responses In general, guard MnDOT interests while encouraging innovation Manage review timeframes Peter Davich MnDOT Design-Build Program Manager

2 MnDOT: ATC Statistics DB Projects with ATCs: 22 since 2002 Total ATCs Submitted: 570 Total ATCs Approved: 352 (62%) Total ATCs Approved Without Conditions: 80 (14%) ATC Utilization Rate (Incorporated into Tech Proposal): 94% ATC Categories with the Highest Success Rates: Geotechnical – 79% Grading – 74% Materials/Walls – 71% ATC Categories with the Lowest Success Rates: Paving – 46% (MnDOT now disallows some paving ATCs) Geometrics – 49% Electrical – 50% Key Message MnDOT let 0-2 DB projects per year in mid-2000s, 3-5 per year now. MnDOT strives to keep ATCs usable despite conditions. It appears this is the case: 94% of ATCs are incorporated into tech proposals. Paving: Almost no paving concepts approved despite early tries; therefore paving ATCs were disallowed. However, MnDOT is re-considering this (PAE/other) Geometrics: MnDOT needs to protect geometric quality, many large concepts early Electrical: Many specific systems with specific component needs for system consistency/maintenance

3 MnDOT: ATC Graphs Key Message
50% in early days of the program as MnDOT and Contractors adapted to the method. Many very large (and unacceptable) ATC concepts on the Contractor side (i.e. realign the roadway using completely new R/W) MnDOT was more conservative as well; MnDOT now presses hard internally to encourage innovative thinking 80% approval rate of late Two recent outliers: St Croix had many third party agreements that locked much of the project in place geometrically/otherwise. TH 55 was an unusual project: simple low-bid project without shortlisting. There were new players and ATCs weren’t highly necessary.

4 MnDOT: ATC Graphs Continued
Key Message Three largest categories: Geometrics: 27% (Historically tied alignments within 5’ of preliminary plans) Bridge: 24% (many bridges, many bridge specs, many opportunities for changes/improvements) Traffic: 15% (lots can be handled with performance specs, but not all) The remaining third of the ATCs address many other issues. MnDOT does not restrict ATCs outside of paving.

5 MnDOT: ATC Cost Statistics*
ATC Cost Savings over the Life of MnDOT’s DB Program: $45.0 million Cost Savings of all Approved ATCs (including unsuccessful teams): $107.4 million Individual ATCs with Largest Cost Savings: Hastings ATC#2 “Tied Arch Alternate” $4,600, /494 ATC#4 “Move Ramp G” $3,000,000 TH 212 ATC#1 “TH 212 Profile Grade Change $2,300,000 Recent Project Total ATC Cost Savings: I94 Reconstruction $1,555,000 I-35E MnPASS $3,375,000 TH 169/494 Interchange $6,545,000 *Note: Cost savings are as estimated by DB Teams Key Message: Real question should be: how was the value to the project enhanced? However, that is difficult to answer in broad programmatic terms Individual value examples for ATCs: greatly reduce drainage infrastructure/maintenance, save 1-year’s worth of construction, improve traffic flow/safety with a roundabout/DDI These values are ‘in the ballpark’, but questionable: 1) Cost has nothing to do with ‘equal or better’, WashDOT is likely correct not to ask for this info. However, it helps for estimate validation and program statistics. 2) The values are likely ~30% overestimated Two very significant projects not included; this is therefore a summary from 20 projects. The ‘ATC Cost Savings’ are calculated from successful proposers’ approved ATCs only. The ‘all Approved ATCs’ are calculated including unsuccessful proposers’ approved ATCs. Note that many of these can become Value Engineering proposals after stipend acceptance. MnDOT ATC savings are, on average, about 3-5% of project cost on typical projects

6 MnDOT: Two-Stage One-on-One Meetings
Offer meetings ~3 weeks into procurement “Dead on Arrival” or “Entertainable” Bring appropriate personnel Keep meetings small, 5-on-5? Maintain confidentiality No: note-taking coaching (but should point out risk areas) ‘stealing’ ideas (even for some mistakes) clarifications, unless ATC-related discussion of scoring Key Message The more meetings the better, so long as DOT staff can support them. 6+ (weekly) meetings per team is not unusual for MnDOT on a large project. “Dead on Arrival”, “On Life Support”, “Entertainable”. Give as good of an indication as possible/appropriate. Bring as much of analysis team as possible, consider having a manager sit in to review

7 MnDOT: ATC Process Continued
# of ATCs limited (5-25) Identify appropriate reviewers, read details carefully and write conditions carefully Management reviews: protect DOT interests and promote innovation Respond within 7-10 days Key Message Limit the number of ATCs to control staff time. Read the ATCs carefully, respond carefully, perform appropriate managerial review. Very important. Respond ASAP (7-10 days). Also very important.

8 MnDOT: Pre-Approved Elements (PAE)
Can be thought of as a required ATC Designed to mitigate risk for both parties “Approved” vs “Equal or Better” Back-and-forth discussion (“coaching”) is allowed…and necessary. MnDOT Applications Hastings Bridge: Redundancy, Scour, Fixity, Analysis Method TH 610: Pavement Design Key Message The PAE process mitigates risk of complex contract language, whereas ATCs allow for innovation and deviation from the contract requirement. MnDOT allows contractors to share their PAE ideas during the one-on-one meetings as well. These are discussed in a more back-and-forth mannter than ATCs.

9 MnDOT Resources Instructions to Proposers template (ATC Process):
General Design-Build Information (Laws, Project Info, Etc) Forms/Other: Form 2.4a for Confidentiality Template Form 4.9a for ATC Log, 4.9b for ATC Approval Template Key Message

Download ppt "ATCs in DB: Minnesota DOT’s Perspective"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google