3 PurposeThe 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 ImprovementExample:Large Traffic Volume IncreasesSafetyArea GrowthOver-Loaded FreewaysFunding Must Be Available in the Five-Year Program for the Design-Build Contracting Method to Be Considered
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.
11 Studied and Modified Other Plans 2-Day Training — Design-Build Institute of America — ASUMaricopa CountyFlorida, Utah, Michigan, New Jersey, Alaska, California and North CarolinaAGC and American Consulting Engineers
13 Process Development (Use Existing Documents Whenever Possible) Design Scoping DocumentRevised Standard Specifications General ConditionsRevised Contract DocumentsTechnical (Section ) Standard SpecificationsProject Specific Special Provisions
14 Method/Prescriptive Specs Performance Specs Design-Build is a Combination of BothMethod/Prescriptive Specs Performance Specs
15 Design-Build Development Team Deputy State Engineer, OperationsAssistant State Engineer, Construction GroupAssistant State Engineer, Design GroupAssistant State Engineer, Valley Project Management GroupAssistant State Engineer, Statewide Project Management GroupAssistant State Engineer, Support Services GroupManager, Engineering Consultant ContractsManager, Contracts & Specifications ServicesProject Manager, Tucson DistrictProject Manager, Phoenix DistrictAssistant Attorney General, ADOT LegalAssociated General ContractorsArizona Consulting engineer AssociationFederal Highway Administration
16 Features of 1998 Arizona Design-Build Law Projects Allowed:Department of Transportation 3Department of Administration 2Counties/Cities > 330,000 1 eachControls:Single ProjectMinimum Size — 10 Million DollarsOwner Obtains Right-of-WayOwner Obtains Environmental DocumentOwner 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 benefitsMust 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 23402000 Legislative SessionInternet Address
20 I-10/Cortaro Road Interchange Reconstruction 1st ProjectI-10/Cortaro Road Interchange ReconstructionBid July 1997 $2,760,500Complete August 1998 $3,714,75*Completed four months ahead of conventional Design-Bid-BuildDeveloper contributed $500,000 to cost of project.*Encountered large areas of unstable subgrade that need to be replaced.
22 Tucson Lessons Learned Public Involvement Delays (Lost Three Weeks)Two-way vs. One-wayFrontage RoadsRight-of-Way Delays — Resolved by Working TogetherReluctance of Subcontractors to Use Incomplete Plans without QuantitiesFinished Early By 120 Days
23 Cost Analysis Utility and Archeological Investigation $215,948 Wet Subgrade (Changed Condition $554,640$770,588Scope and Design Changes5.7% Over Bid $183,627Eleven Subcontractors Involved
24 2nd ProjectPhoenix Black Canyon Freeway I-17 — Thomas to Peoria Corridor ImprovementAdd an HOV Lane for 7.5 MilesAdd Auxiliary Lanes at InterchangesReconstruct and Widen Camelback Road BridgeReconstruct and Widen Glendale Avenue BridgeDesign and Install Lighting and SignsDesign and Install Freeway Management SystemApproximate Cost — $75 MillionAnticipated Completion — September 2000**One year earlier than ADOT schedule
25 I-17 History and Plan Thomas Road Bridge 1992 Indian School Bridge 1996Dunlap Bridge 1997Northern Bridge 1998Bethany Bridge 1998I-17 Widening at Thomas 1995I-17 Widening Peoria North 1996Camelback and Glendale Bridges 2001Remaining Widening 200412 Years — Too Long!!Let’s Get Done
27 Reasons for Selecting This Project Solves Serious Congestion ProblemIncreases Capacity by 25-30%Completes Reconstruction of I-17 Three Years Sooner than Current PlanConstruction and Design Cost Savings Due to Combining Projects and Shortening TimeAllows ADOT to Consider Additional HOV Lanes on Other Freeways Sooner
28 Phoenix I-17 Lessons Learned Teamwork is a MustClassification of RolesPreferable to Co-House TeamOnly 176 Change Orders4.8 Percent Overrun (3% Value Added by OwnerOnly Two Minor Issue EscalationsState Estimate 900 DaysCompletion 603 DaysSuccessful Use of Incentives$1.7 Million Dollars Motorist Delay Savings
29 Design-Build Typical Team Composition ContractorDesign FirmsPrime Subcontractors1 2 (P)1 5 (2P)1 - (1P)1 -1 1 (P)Prime Subcontractors1 41 -1 31 5On the I-17 Project, 36 percent of work is by subcontractors70 Subcontractors11 Engineering Firms
30 I-17 Design-Build Incentive Performance Summary Potential AmountAvailableAmount Earned% of AvailableSuperior Public RelationQuality WorkmanshipAuxiliary LanesEarly Median LightingCamelback T.I. In 180 DaysGlendale T.I. In 180 DaysAR-ACFC SmoothnessPCCP Strength & Thickness$150,000$260,000$400,000$300,000$600,000$1,162,909$417,989$150,000$241,371$400,000$300,000$600,000$487,599$271,807100%93%42%65%
31 Change Order Log 16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added # DescriptionValueStatus/Comments11a2345677a7b89101111a11b1213141516Shoulder widenings in depressed roadway (Northern & Dunlap approved) Seg. 3Shoulder widenings in depressed roadway Seg.1 & 2 (includes slope paving)Reconstruct NB offramp at Thomas and NB HOV Lane Start I-10/ThomasTemporary concrete barrierFrontage Rd work south of Dunlap/27th Ave (NB & SB) & Dunlap TI WorkIncrease in gross receipt tax to 7%Change in traffic control device - barricade with light to large vertical panelGlendale Bridge damage SB repair #1 -Truesdell girder repairGlendale Bridge SB repair #2Glendale Bridge slab repair - south halfCamelback City of Phoenix improvementsVMS relocation (change order complete ‘no cost’)Full freeway lighting specification changeKiewit & Sundt previous I-17 project additional work items & misc. itemsNorthern additional B22.70 fence for wing extensionsSawcut/remove SPUI ramp wedge48” fenceNB Indian School catch basin repairSpall repair under existing asphalt rubberMaryland pedestrian bridge pierLedge beam removal at Bethany, Northern & DunlapApproximate 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$165,870.13$3,606.47$9,162.78$86,472.60$21,802.89$100,527.64$4,364,639.99Finalized C.O. 5Finalized C.O. 9Finalized C.O. 12Finalized C.O. 3Finalized C.O. 11Finalized C.O. 7Finalized C.O. 1Finalized C.O. 6Finalized L.A. 3Finalized L.A. 2Finalized C.O. 10Finalized C.O. 2Finalized C.O. 4Finalized C.O. 13Finalized L.A. 1Finalized C.O. 8Finalized F.A. 1F.A. 2F.A. 3Finalized C.O. 1416 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added
32 SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway Bullhead City to Golden Valley 3rd ProjectSR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway Bullhead City to Golden ValleyConvert Two-Lane to Four-Lane HighwayApproximate Cost $45 MillionConstruction Start April 2000Anticipated Completion November 2001Original Completion July 2004
34 SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway Design-Build FirmTechnicalProposal ScorePrice ProposalPriceTech. ProposalBestValueKiewit Western/Parsons TransPulice/AGRASundt/Granite/URS GreinerTotal PointsState Estimate119.7105.7114.6138$42,118,780$38,828,846$53,701,360$39,391,360$42,118,780119.7$38,828,846105.7$53,701,360114.6351,869367,349468,598Seven Firms Submitted RFQs
35 US 60/Superstition Freeway 4th ProjectUS 60/Superstition FreewayLocation: Jct I-10 — Val Vista RoadLength: 13.5 MilesFeaturesI-10 — US 60 HOV Freeway to Freeway InterchangeMedian HOV Lanes from I-10 — Val Vista Road (EB & WB)Two Additional General Use Lanes from Loop 101 — Val Vista RoadAuxiliary Lanes Between InterchangesTotal Cost: $255 Million$200 Million in FY — five-year programGNS Loans — $100 Million due to month construction time
36 US 60/Superstition Freeway Design-Bid-Build Process:Require minimum four separate construction projectsRequire 18 month design time, then month construction time per projectLast segment would advertise in FY04 with completion in FY06Using Design-Build Process Saves a Minimum of 1 1/2 Years
37 Design-Bid Package Proposal Contents Proposal ProcessA-I Public AdvertisementA-II IntroductionRequest for QualificationsRequest for ProposalC-I Final Selection ProcessC-II General RequirementsC-III Design Scope of WorkC-IV Technical SpecificationsStandard Stored Specs & Special Provisions(Section100, General Provisions of Specifications have been modified to fit the Design-Build Process)Contract Documents
38 Request for Qualifications Format US 60 Design-Build Project Part A Introductory Letter N/A 2Part B Evaluation Criteria 281. Project Understanding& Approach 252. Design-Build Project Team 253. Proposers Capabilities 254. Quality Program 205. Safety Program 5Part C Supportive Information N/A 10Part D Design-Builder Proposer’sInformation Form N/A 5Part E Work History Form N/A 5Total
39 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Design-Build Process 1. Responsiveness to RFP 75 PointsDesign Management 10 PointsQuality Program 20 PointsDesign Features 15 PointsStructure Features 10 PointsOverall Schedule & Milestones 6 PointsPublic Relations Plan 5 PointsGeotechnical Investigation 3 PointsLighting 2 PointsSigning & Pavement Marking 2 PointsAesthetics & Landscaping 2 Points2. Innovation 8 PointsConstructability 5 PointsMiscellaneous 3 Points3. Construction 35 PointsConstruction Management 10 PointsMaintenance & Protection of Traffic 10 PointsUtility Relocation Plans 85 PointsSafety Plan 70 Points
43 Design-Build Short & Long-Term Organization for I-17 Corridor Project State EngineerADOT DevelopmentProject ManagerTerry BourlandDistrict ConstructionResident EngineerJohn AkinTechnical GroupsDesign-Build ProcessRon WilliamsTechnical Groups
44 ADOT Design-Build Team Possible Issue Resolution Structure Escalation*Granite Sundt in YellowADOT Design-Build Team Possible Issue Resolution StructureGranite-SundtManagement Board*Or ADOTManagement TeamState EngineerDistrict EngineerDan LanceProject DirectorDaily OperationsADOT Development GroupsTechnical ManagerProject ManagerTerry BourlandDistrict ConstructionTechnical ManagerDesign ManagerQuality ManagerConstructionConstructionManagerDevelopmentTechnical LeaderConstructionTechnical LeaderDesign-Build Process ManagerRon WilliamsEric CroweJohn AkinProject Manager coordinates all activities within scope, schedule, budget, parameters.
45 Design Team Coordination with Construction and Maintenance Staff Tuesdays (AM)Design Team MeetingD-B Project ManagerDesign ManagerDeputy Design ManagerChief Roadway EngineerDesign Quality ManagerConstruction Quality ManagerTask Leaders (as req’d)ADOT PM & Other RepsDesign Status ProgressWednesday (PM)Construction Schedule MeetingD-B Project ManagerConstruction Quality ManagerConstruction ManagerConstruction Project Engineer(and staff)Field SupervisorPublic Relations ManagerUpdate 5-WeekConstruction ScheduleThursdays (AM)Design-Build Schedule/Quality MeetingADOT Resident EngineerADOT Project ManagerADOT Other Reps (as req’d)D-B Project ManagerConstruction ManagerConstruction Quality ManagerSafety ManagerDesign ManagerDPS/Law EnforcementConstruction Project Engineer2 Superintendents1 Field EngineerTuesdays (PM)Design/Construction MeetingDesign ManagerDeputy Design ManagerTask Leaders (as req’dConstruction Project EngineerUpdated Design ScheduleThursdays (PM)ADOT Public Relations MeetingADOT District PR RepD-B Project ManagerPublic Relations ManagerDesign ManagerConstruction Project ManagerMOT EngineerRegional Traffic EngineerUpdated Public Informationfor Release on Friday
46 I-17 Design-Build Plan Review and Release Process Constructibility InputPlan Developed by Lead DisciplinePlan Developed by Lead DisciplinePlan Routed to All Other Technical Disciplines and Construction Staff50% Comment Resolution MeetingADOT Attendance & CommentPlan Revised by Lead Discipline80% Comment Resolution MeetingADOT Attendance & CommentConstructibility InputPlan Revised by Lead DisciplineAudit of QC DocumentationDesign Team Manager Approves for ConstructionConstruction Project Engineer Releases Plan for Construction
48 Utilities in the Design-Build Process 1. ADOT Locates Utilities and Probable Conflicts. Through June 19982. ADOT Obtains New R/W on Glendale Avenue and Camelback Road (10’ to12’). No R/W Needed for I-17. Through December 19983. ADOT Determines Prior Rights Where Possible. Through December 19984. Design-Build Firm Starts Design From Concept Report. Through January 19995. Design-Build Firm Determines Utility Conflicts as First Work Item. Through March 1999
49 Relocation ProcessDesign-Build Firm Has Responsibility to Adjust and Relocate Utilities as NeededADOT Will Pay to Move Utilities with Prior RightsUtilities Will Pay for BettermentPermitted Utilities Will Coordinate Their Move with Design-Build Firm
50 Working Relationships Design by Design-Build FirmDesign by Utility CompaniesRelocation by Design-Build FirmRelocation by Utility or Its Agent Prior to Road ConstructionRelocation by Utility or Its Agent During Construction
51 Selection of Best Value Offer for Design-Build Projects
52 Selection Process — Two Step Request for Qualifications — TeamRequest for Proposal — Technical
54 SR 68 Evaluation Panels Short List Panel Panel MemberSectionQualifications1. George Wallace, PEPre-Design21+ years with ADOT, PE for 23 yearsPre-Design Section Manager2. Debra Brisk, PEKingman District16 years with ADOT, PE for 12, yearsKingman District Engineer3. Julie TrunkFHWA11 years with FHWA, non-PE position,materials background4. Dee BowlingEnvironmentalPlanning10 years with ADOT, non-PE position,environmental background5. Mike BluffAGC22 years as a contractor, non-PE position,24 years in construction
55 SR 68 Evaluation Panels Technical Proposal Panel Panel MemberSectionQualifications1. Bahram Dariush, PES/W ProjectManagement15 years with ADOT, PE for 4 years,SR 68 D-B Design Project Manager2. Jennifer Livingston,PE, BSCE, MSEKingman District4 years with ADOT, PE for 1 year,SR 68 D-B Resident Engineer3. John Lawson, PEMaterials Section29 years with ADOT, PE for 25+ years,materials/geotechnical background4. Shafi Hasan, PEBridge Group9 years with ADOT, PE for 16+ years,structures background5. Tay DamFHWA5 years with ADOT, non-PE position,environmental background6. Arif Kazmi, PETraffic Group16 years with ADOT, PE for 14 years,traffic background7. Art Brooks, PEACEA18 years as an owner of a design firm,PE for 26 years
56 SR 68 Design-Build Project Overall Ranking by Score SelectionPanel#1Panel#2Panel#3Panel#4Panel#5Panel#6Panel#7FirmAvgRank1. Kiewit Western3. Sundt/Granite2. PuliceOverall Ranking by Rank Order SelectionPanel#1Panel#2Panel#3Panel#4Panel#5Panel#6Panel#7FirmAvgRank1. Kiewit Western3. Sundt/Granite2. Pulice
58 SR 68 Design-Build Project Firm: Kiewit Western Rank: 1Representative:Panel Composition:1 Spmg - Phx2 Kingman District3 Bridge Group4 Materials Group5 ACEA6 FHWA7 TrafficSelection DebriefingMaxPtsPanel#1Panel#2Panel#3Panel#4Panel#5Panel#6Panel#7Evaluation CriteriaAvg1. Responsiveness to RFP2. Innovation3. Construction4. Oral InterviewsMaximum Possible Points (RFP)Rank Orders
59 Request for Qualifications Format US 60 Design-Build Project Bid Opening: 06/09/00BidderTechnicalProposalScore (TPS)PriceProposalAdjusted Score(AS)=(PP)(TPS)State EstimateKiewit Western Co.Pulice Construction, Inc.Sundt/Granite, J.VN/A119.70105.70114.60$39,391,360$42,118,780$38,828,846$53,701,360N/A351,869367,349468,598
60 Value Items in Kiewit Proposal Five Segments Permit Early OpeningRelocate Bridge to Construct a Square, Not a Skewed BridgeIndependent Roadways; Super Elevation Improves DrainageGrade Modification at Union Pass Crest Allows 60 MPH Roadway Instead of 45 MPHImproved Vertical Site DistanceImproved Horizontal Sight Distance
61 Review Comments — SR 68 Kiewit Proposal In-depth understandingMost innovative proposalStressed BLM relationshipsDiscussed every itemQuite innovative in design and construction mattersComplete 4 months early. Stop work on Friday at noonSolid construction management approachClearly understood the impact to traveling public is a major issue
62 Review Comments — SR 68 Pulice/AGRA Proposal A lot of unanswered questionsWould complete 6 months earlyAll 13 miles under construction at the same time — 2 segmentsConstructability very briefOrganizational plan not clearLacking technical response in panel interview. Answers unclear