August 2, 2011

Jeff Roby, P.E. – Design-Build Program Manager

VDOT Alternate Project Delivery Office

Design-Build Procurement Overview

2

Design-Build SuccessBattlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

3

Project Overview

•0.7 Miles

•4 lanes

•2 bridges, over 1200 ft long each

4

Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

5

Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

6

Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

7

Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

Design-Builder – Shirley Design/Build, LLC (Lorton, VA)

Project Cost - $35M

RFQ – August 2006

Shortlist – October 2006

RFP – January 2007

Technical/Price Proposals Submitted – April 2007

Project Award – June 2007 (highest tech score/lowest price)

Groundbreaking – January 2008

Open to Traffic – September 2009

8

Bristol District• 460 Connector Phase 1 - $90.0M• ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $4.7M• ARRA Multiple Culvert Rehab – $2.9M

Fredericksburg District• ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $6.6M• Multiple Culvert Rehab – $3.1M

Hampton Roads District• Malbone Wetland Mitigation Site - $1.3M• Middle Ground Boulevard - $32.6M

Lynchburg District• Rte 29 Bridge Replacement - $6.7 M• ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $9.5M• ARRA Multiple Culvert Rehab – $2.9M• Multiple Culvert Rehab – $3.0M

25 -Current Design-Build Projects Awarded for Construction

9

Nova District• I-66 Pavement Rehabilitation - $37.9M• Pacific Boulevard Widening – $1.9M• Rte 50 Widening – $67.8M• Route 27/244 Interchange - $31.5M• Pacific Boulevard Extension - $5.4M

Richmond District• Capital Trail (Sherwood Forest) – $8.8M• Rte 36 BRAC – $7.3M• I-295/Meadowville Interchange – 6.3M

Salem District• 1-81 Truck Climbing Lanes – $75.4M• Rte 61 Bridge Replacement – $15.6M• ARRA Multiple Culvert Rehab – 0.9M

Staunton District• 1-81 Truck Climbing Lanes - $74.2M• ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $9.0M• Clifton Forge Bridge Replacement – 3.5M

Current Design-Build Projects Awarded for Construction (cont.)

10

Nova District• I-66 Active Traffic Management - $32.3M• 2 Bridge Replacements - $3M

Salem District• Valley View Interchange – $70.9M

Staunton District• I-64 Exit 91 Interchange - $43.3M

Culpeper District• I-64 Zion Crossroads Interchange - $7.9M

Candidate Design-Build Projects

11

Design-Build Procurement

12

AASHTO Guide for Design-Build Procurement

Proposal Evaluation Plan should be:

• Fair

• Equitable

• Transparent

13

AASHTO Guide for Design-Build Procurement

Guidelines for Evaluation Planning• Be as explicit and as objective as possible with all evaluation

criteria

• Clearly state the evaluation criteria and weight given for each item

• Ensure that the evaluation team is highly qualified and understands how to apply the criteria

• Clearly state the requirements of the RFP including what will be considered a non-responsive proposal

14

VDOT Evaluation Basics

• Goal of evaluation is to select the best value proposal in terms of price and quality

• Offerors have expectations that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with the “rules” laid out in the procurement documents

• Offerors are given opportunity to ask questions related to the procurement documents

• Evaluation team has the right to seek a clarifications to fully understand information contained in a proposal

• As a public agency, procurement must be ready to respond to public scrutiny

15

Evaluation Objectives RFQ versus RFP

RFQ Stage - Conceptual

• For qualifying/short listing

• Capabilities

• Demonstrated experience

• Key personnel

• Project understanding

• Relatively low cost for proposal preparation

16

Evaluation Objectives RFQ versus RFP

RFP Stage - Detailed

• Detailed technical proposal with lump sum price

• Design concept

• Approach to construct project

• QA/QC program implementation

• Binding

• High cost for proposal preparation

17

RFP Evaluation Process

• Technical Proposal – Weighting 30%

• Price Proposal – Weighting of 70%

• Scoring Range Application – Evaluation Criteria included for each submittal

requirement– Guidelines for Evaluation of Design-Build

Proposals (on VDOT website)

18

Price Proposal

• Lump Sum Amount• Proposal Guaranty • Lowest Bid Receives Maximum Points • Other Bids Pro-rated from Maximum Points• Opened and Read Publicly• Combined with Technical Score to Determine

Overall Proposal Score

19

Combining Technical Score with Price

SAMPLE FINAL RFP SCORES 460 Connector - Phase I

0460-013-773 R201, C501, B628, B629, B630

Technical 30% Price 70%

Offerors Raw

Score Weighted

score Price Raw

Score Weighted

score Combined

Score

1 72.00 21.60 $80,000,000 100.00 70.00 91.60 2 65.00 19.50 $85,000,000 94.12 65.88 85.38

3 60.00 18.00 $82,000,000 97.56 68.29 86.29

Many Procurements – Highest Technical Score also has Lowest Price

20

Design-Build Procurement Challenges

• Scope issues during the RFP phase

• Adequate resources dedicated to evaluate proposals

• Defined process for evaluating proposals

• Bid protests

21

Bid Protest Case Study

460 Connector – Bristol, Virginia

•Twin high-level bridge structures approximately 1600 feet in length

•Mainline four-lane divided highway totaling approximately 4800 feet in length

•A two-lane connector road to Route 80, including a second multi-span bridge over Rte 768 and Hunts Creek

•Contract Value was estimated at $100M

22

23

24

25

Case Highlights

• $100M project derailed by a lawsuit

• VDOT prevailed at the temporary Injunction hearing

• Plaintiff pursued and case went to trial

• At trial plaintiff narrowed its protest to one ground, demonstrating years of experience on the resume form

26

The RFP stated:

“The Right of Way Manager shall have at least ten (10) years of experience in managing complex right of way projects. Evidence of this experience will be of sufficient detail on the resume to satisfy the requirements.”

27

The RFP stated:

“The Right of Way Manager shall have at least ten (10) years of experience in managing complex right of way projects. Evidence of this experience will be of sufficient detail on the resume to satisfy the requirements.”

28

Plaintiffs argument was two-fold:

1. The years of experience listed in section (d) of the resume form did not constitute sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

2. The experience and qualifications presented on the resume were not that of a Right of Way Manager.

29

460 Connector – Resume Form

30

Judges Decision was in favor of the Plaintiff:

Providing a mere number of years of experience is not “sufficient detail” as anticipated by the RFP.

Moreover, the Right of Way Manager failed to buttress his assertion with corresponding detail.

The Court has determined that the resume was deficient in that it failed to provide evidence of sufficient detail to support the contention that the Right of Way Manager had more than the ten-year minimum experience required by the Department.

31

Victory from the jaws of defeat:

• Set in motion a change in process

• Realization VDOT had to make improvements to our procurement process

• Documented Procedures and Guidelines – “Guidelines for Evaluation of Design-Build Proposals” (On VDOT’S DB Website)

• Training for Evaluators

• Provide more time and resources for Technical Proposal Evaluations

32

Recommendations for moving ahead:

• Continued training of evaluation team members and design-build staff

• Define limited number of pertinent “differentiators” for each project

• Exploring 2-phase/lowest price for appropriate projects

• Exploring 1-phase/lowest price for appropriate projects

33

QUESTIONS ?