1 BART Presentation AASHTO Trnsport Users Group AASHTO Trnsport Users Group 18 th TEA/TUG Conference and Workshop Daytona Beach, FL 18 th TEA/TUG Conference and Workshop Daytona Beach, FL November , 2005 Ohio Department of Transportation

2 What / Who is BART ? BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

3 No, Wrong BART BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005 Don’t have a Cow Man ! ODOT NEWS

4 B id A nalysis R eview T eam The sharing of BART ideas and activities with other agencies, departments and friends. BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

5 BART B id A nalysis R eview T eam  ODOT – Office of Estimating  Jeff Hisem – Administrator  Three person diverse group Tim Pritchard Tim Pritchard Michael Guckes Michael Guckes David Buhn David Buhn BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

6 Introduction “A Single Focused Mindset” can be like a … One Legged Stool

7 Where does BART sit ?  Seat - DSS (Decision Support System)  The data & tools support and sustain the group’s activities  Legs - Activities  Bid history products  Collusion and Questionable activity detection  Market Analysis  Surface beneath the stool  Activities exist upon an uneven & changing foundation. BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

8 B id A nalysis R eview T eam BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005 DSS connects to all activities Bid History Products Collusion & Questionable Activity Detection Uneven & Changing Ground ODOT Environment Market Analysis

9 The Seat  DSS (Decision Support System) database Necessary on-going support activities Necessary on-going support activities 1. Data is checked, re-checked, then checked again i. Examples of data verification a) Project coordinates b) Missing rejected contract bid tabs c) Changing field definitions, i.e. spec changes, vendor ids 2. Update approved asphalt plant & aggregate pit info 3. Vendor affiliate tracking i. Pre-qualification ii. Asphalt / Aggregate inspections (QC) and approval iii. Use external sources i.e. ODNR, Associations, Contractors BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

10 1 st Leg  Bid History Products FHWA / PR45 Reports & FHWA Bridge Report FHWA / PR45 Reports & FHWA Bridge Report Bid History Catalog for CES and Estimator Bid History Catalog for CES and Estimator Historical Bid Data for Estimating Historical Bid Data for Estimating Annual Report “Summary of Contracts Awarded” Annual Report “Summary of Contracts Awarded” Requests for Information (Internal & External) Requests for Information (Internal & External) BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

11 FHWA / PR45 Reports  Two Quarterly Reports for the FHWA Projects on the NHS Projects on the NHS Firstly, a hardcopy report that provides information and $’s bid from the three lowest bidders for each project. Firstly, a hardcopy report that provides information and $’s bid from the three lowest bidders for each project. Secondly, a computerized Focus report that provides 1) $ split between pavement and bridge and 2) $ amounts associated with different concerned commodities for each project. Secondly, a computerized Focus report that provides 1) $ split between pavement and bridge and 2) $ amounts associated with different concerned commodities for each project. 1. i.e. Asphalt, Excavation, Rein. Steel, Structural Concrete BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

12  Annual Report for the FHWA  Criteria for report: Determine NHS bridges and Non-NHS bridges Determine NHS bridges and Non-NHS bridges Only New bridge decks or removed bridge decks Only New bridge decks or removed bridge decks  Provide Info: Type of bridge Type of bridge Cost of bridge deck area (Sq Ft or Sq M) Cost of bridge deck area (Sq Ft or Sq M) No. of Spans No. of Spans Special Conditions: i.e. locations, height, complexity, etc. Special Conditions: i.e. locations, height, complexity, etc. FHWA / Bridge Reports BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

13  Catalogs for CES & Estimator DSS HIREG created DSS HIREG created Built using weighted averages or regression estimates Built using weighted averages or regression estimates Bid History Catalogs BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

14 Historical Bid Data BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005  Tool used by Estimators  Select “Item of Work” and returns following attributes Project Number Project Number County Route & Section County Route & Section Type Type Quantity Quantity Estimated Price Estimated Price Awarded Bid Awarded Bid Low Bid Low Bid High Bid High Bid Average Bid Average Bid

15 Historical Bid Data BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

16 Information Requests  External Contractors, OIG, AG, State Agencies, OTC Contractors, OIG, AG, State Agencies, OTC SAS, Excel Spreadsheets, Geomedia Maps SAS, Excel Spreadsheets, Geomedia Maps Quantities, Avg Pricing, Worktypes, Areas Quantities, Avg Pricing, Worktypes, Areas  Internal Director, Construction, Accounting, Finance Director, Construction, Accounting, Finance Presentations, Meetings, Projections/Forecasts Presentations, Meetings, Projections/Forecasts Bundling, Asphalt Pricing, Aggregate Control, Market Shares, Cost Indices BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

17 2 nd Leg  Collusion & Questionable Activity Detection Line Item Profiles (LIP’s) Line Item Profiles (LIP’s) 80/20 Analysis 80/20 Analysis Asphalt Analysis Asphalt Analysis BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

18 Line Item Profiles  A Tool used to determine Unbalanced Bids Unbalanced Bids Front- end Loading Front- end Loading Complementary Bidding Complementary Bidding  ODOT’s current LIP method Plotting bid line items Plotting bid line items 1. Any bidder who’s bid $ amount (of each line item) is => +/- 1% of the total estimate of the project Sham Bids Inaccurate Estimates BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

19 Line Item Profiles BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

20 80/20 Analysis  Collusion Pre-Test: Where to look first  Technique: Analysis by contract work-type Analysis by contract work-type 1. Select items of work that have 80% of $ in work-type 2. Remove as-per-plan, lump sum, and each 3. Statistically standardize item price information (Price Change/Distribution Value) 4. Compare different items of work (apples to oranges) BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

21 Blending Price Movement with Bidding Behavior  Compare the nature of the median price change by year.  Red flag items with “too much” price change from year to year for a given price range. Method not effective for items with “each”, “lump sum” or other hard-to-measure units. BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

22 Asphalt Analysis  Track ownership changes from 2000 to present Record mergers and acquisitions among paving firms Record mergers and acquisitions among paving firms Changes in bidding behavior Changes in bidding behavior Ownership of approved asphalt mfg. facilities Ownership of approved asphalt mfg. facilities Ownership of approved aggregates sources Ownership of approved aggregates sources  Search for collusion or other questionable behavior Follow Info Tech methodology Follow Info Tech methodology BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

23 Pit and Asphalt Facility Pit Only Asphalt Facility Only Present Day Vendor “A” Pits/DF’s and Asphalt Facilities

24 Black – 2004 Green – 2003 Red – 2002 Blue Shelly & Sands: 3 Vendor “B” /2004 Wins and Losses

25 Black – 2004 Green – 2003 Red – 2002 Blue Vendor “B” /2004 Wins with Number of Bidders

26 Black – 2004 Green – 2003 Red – 2002 Blue Single Bid Asphalt Contracts /2004 B - contractor B G - contractor G J - contractor J K - contractor K S - contractor S S&S - contractor SS JV - joint venture O - Other Vendors [R indicates a rejected bid]

27 3 rd Leg  Market Analysis ODOT Cost Index: “Basket of Goods” Approach ODOT Cost Index: “Basket of Goods” Approach Asphalt Bundling Project Asphalt Bundling Project OTC Bid Analysis OTC Bid Analysis BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

28 Asphalt Project Bundling  Scenario: A single owner gains market control of Aggregate and/or Asphalt in a specific area  Strategy: promote more than a single bid Bundle (combine) similar Asphalt Projects in and around the market controlled area Bundle (combine) similar Asphalt Projects in and around the market controlled area 1. Locate projects to bundle near competitive companies asphalt facilities 2. Select projects in areas with different bidders 3. Cross boundaries i.e. district, county 4. Increase size of project by $ value and/or quantity for economies of scale BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

29

30 Ohio DOT Cost Index  Primary Question: How will inflation and market fluctuations affect future construction costs? How will inflation and market fluctuations affect future construction costs?  Develop an Index (FY01-FY05): Used bid data in DSS for analysis to create Laspeyres type index like Consumer Price Index Used bid data in DSS for analysis to create Laspeyres type index like Consumer Price Index Selected largest expenditure items for each commodity Selected largest expenditure items for each commodity o “Basket of Goods” Approach Determined composite index for each commodity “Basket” Determined composite index for each commodity “Basket” Developed an overall ODOT composite cost index of all the individual commodity indices Developed an overall ODOT composite cost index of all the individual commodity indices BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

31 Ohio DOT Cost Index Graph BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

32 Ohio DOT Cost Index (Table)

33 O hio T urnpike C ommission - OTC  OTC: The OTC separate from ODOT (similar operations) The OTC separate from ODOT (similar operations) The Commission manages 241-mile toll road spanning Northern Ohio The Commission manages 241-mile toll road spanning Northern Ohio  Project: Analyze each bid item within each OTC 3-lane widening project Analyze each bid item within each OTC 3-lane widening project To include all projects, bids, and items To include all projects, bids, and items BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

34 (Cont’d) O hio T urnpike C ommission - OTC  BART: Current work: Current work: 1. Develop an item master of all OTC related items 2. Align pertinent data for useful future analyses 3. Download all OTC data into the DSS database Future work: Future work: 1. Line Item Profiles – Analysis of bidding patterns of projects 2. Vendor Competition – Analysis of competitors who bid on projects or why bidders did not 3. Also, analysis of vendor markets, market shares and price analysis BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

35 The Surface… Uneven & Changing Ground  Factors that influence BART activities Today’s newspaper articles Today’s newspaper articles Tomorrow’s newspaper articles Tomorrow’s newspaper articles Collusion found in neighboring states Collusion found in neighboring states Perceived inflation increases Perceived inflation increases Inter-office collaborations Inter-office collaborations o Data availability o Requests for information BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005

36 Wrap Up  Summary  DSS Database necessary starting point  Multiple types of activities for sustainable team 1. Collusion and Questionable Activity Detection 2. Bid History Products 3. Market Analysis  Discussion BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005