Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Minnesota Department of Transportation"— 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 Construction Time Savings

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 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 ) Standard Specifications Project Specific Special Provisions

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

15 Design-Build Development 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

19 Design-Build Projects

20 I-10/Cortaro Road Interchange Reconstruction
1st Project I-10/Cortaro Road Interchange 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.


22 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

23 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

24 2nd Project Phoenix Black Canyon Freeway I-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

25 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


27 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

28 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

29 Design-Build Typical Team Composition
Contractor Design Firms Prime Subcontractors 1 2 (P) 1 5 (2P) 1 - (1P) 1 - 1 1 (P) Prime Subcontractors 1 4 1 - 1 3 1 5 On the I-17 Project, 36 percent of work is by subcontractors 70 Subcontractors 11 Engineering Firms

30 I-17 Design-Build Incentive Performance Summary
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 $1,162,909 $417,989 $150,000 $241,371 $400,000 $300,000 $600,000 $487,599 $271,807 100% 93% 42% 65%

31 Change Order Log 16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added #
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 $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 F.A. 1 F.A. 2 F.A. 3 Finalized C.O. 14 16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added

32 SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway Bullhead City to Golden Valley
3rd Project SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway Bullhead 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


34 SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman Highway
Design-Build Firm Technical Proposal Score Price Proposal Price Tech. Proposal Best Value 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 Seven Firms Submitted RFQs

35 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 — five-year program GNS Loans — $100 Million due to month construction time

36 US 60/Superstition Freeway
Design-Bid-Build Process: Require minimum four separate construction projects Require 18 month design time, then 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

37 Design-Bid Package Proposal 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

38 Request for Qualifications Format US 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

39 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

40 Project Team Organization

41 Terry Bourland - Development John Akin - Construction
I-17 Design-Build Team C & S Richard Murphy Quality Allan Samuels ECS Ron Thomas Partnering Ginger Murdough Project Managers: Terry Bourland - Development John Akin - Construction FHWA Bill Vachon 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

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

43 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

44 ADOT Design-Build Team Possible Issue Resolution Structure
Escalation *Granite Sundt in Yellow ADOT Design-Build Team Possible Issue Resolution Structure Granite-Sundt Management Board* Or ADOT Management Team State Engineer District Engineer Dan Lance Project Director Daily Operations ADOT Development Groups Technical Manager Project Manager Terry Bourland District Construction Technical Manager Design Manager Quality Manager Construction Construction 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.

45 Design Team Coordination with Construction and Maintenance Staff
Tuesdays (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 Wednesday (PM) 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 Thursdays (AM) 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) Design/Construction Meeting Design Manager Deputy Design Manager Task Leaders (as req’d Construction Project Engineer Updated Design Schedule Thursdays (PM) 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

46 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

47 Utility Relationships

48 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

49 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

50 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

51 Selection of Best Value Offer for Design-Build Projects

52 Selection Process — Two Step
Request for Qualifications — Team Request for Proposal — Technical

53 Best Value Proposal Cost Technical Score

54 SR 68 Evaluation Panels Short 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

55 SR 68 Evaluation Panels Technical 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

56 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 3. Sundt/Granite 2. Pulice 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 3. Sundt/Granite 2. Pulice

57 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 2. Innovation 3. Construction 4. Oral Interviews Maximum Possible Points (RFP) Rank Orders

58 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 2. Innovation 3. Construction 4. Oral Interviews Maximum Possible Points (RFP) Rank Orders

59 Request for Qualifications Format US 60 Design-Build Project
Bid Opening: 06/09/00 Bidder Technical Proposal Score (TPS) Price Proposal Adjusted Score (AS)= (PP)(TPS) State Estimate Kiewit Western Co. Pulice Construction, Inc. Sundt/Granite, J.V 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

60 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

61 Review Comments — SR 68 Kiewit 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

62 Review Comments — SR 68 Pulice/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

63 Bid Tabulations I-17 Design-Build Project
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 Engineer J.D. Abrams, Inc. Granite/Sundt Meadow Valley/ Parsons Brinkerhoff 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

64 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

65 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

Download ppt "Minnesota Department of Transportation"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google