lak-002-03.03 93467 · web viewcopying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text,...
TRANSCRIPT
ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design
2020 Nomination Template
Project Nomination Deadline: March 6, 2020District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:
March 10, 2020
transportation.ohio.govwww.acecohio.org
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
The nomination process has two steps:1) Consultants and/or ODOT Employees complete a draft nomination using this Word template
o Draft nominations (in MS Word format) are to be emailed to the respective ODOT District Capital Program Administrator (see the map and table below) by Friday, March 6, 2020
Please save this file using unique name(s) for your nomination(s) to avoid confusion and overwriting issues. Completed document should be no more than 25 total pages, maximum (not including the embedded picture
pages). All requested images should be included using the Picture fields available with the specific questions. Do not submit hard copies of any nomination materials, attach additional documents and do not send CD-
ROMs. Many entry fields in this form accept ‘Rich Text’ formatted material, but reformatting directly in the fields is
limited/restricted due to the templated nature of this presentation. Copying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text, indents, font size, etc., from other unrestricted Word files or other documents is possible and acceptable.
2) District Capital Program Administrators use this portal link (ODOT Intranet Only) to submit pre-screened/completed nomination Word format document(s) by Tuesday, March 10, 2020
o Please save file(s) using unique name(s) for each nomination to avoid confusion and overwriting issues.o Each district may submit a maximum of two (2) submissions per category for final review
Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov
ODOT DISTRICTCAPITAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS
D-1: Robert White(419) 999-6901
D-2: Kacey Young (419) 373-4350
m i k e . gr a m za@ d o t .oh i o . gov D-3: Matthew Walter
(419) 207- [email protected]
D-4: Chad Root(330) 786-3162
[email protected]: Julie Gwinn(740) 323-5240
D-6: Thom Slack(740) 833-8340
th o m .sla c k @ d o t . o h i o .g o v D-7: Matt Parrill(937) 497-6802
m a t t. par r i l l @ d o t . o h io. gov
D-8: Stefan Spinosa(513) 933-6639
st e f a n .s p i nos a @ d o t. o h i o .g o v D-9: Christopher
Pridemore(740) 774-9067
D-10: Jamie Hendershot(740) 568- 3975
[email protected]: Shane Locke
(330) [email protected]
D-12: Michael Kubek(216) 584-2127
Project Nomination Form
Project Name: LAK-SR2-03.03 L&R
Project PID: 93467
Consultant Agreement No.: 19271
County or Municipality: Lake County
ODOT District: ODOT District 12
Consultant Name: GPD Group
Category for which project is being nominated Category 1: Construction Value - $0 to $5,000,000
Construction Value $1,069,274
Construction Project Number 19-0055
Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion
PS&E GPD Group to District 12 10/13/2017, Letting 1/24/2019, Completion 10/15/2019
Name of Organization Submitting GPD Group
Contact person for award-related material/submittal (Name, email, phone,
mailing address)
Thomas Washko (HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]"[email protected])216-927-8679GPD Group
1
5595 Transportation Blvd., Suite 100Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125
Region Contact Person and their role Michael Kubek, P.E., C.P.M. ; Capital Programs Administrator
Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus
(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.
Thomas Washko, P.E., GPD Group Project ManagerCassandra Stevens, ODOT Project Engineer (construction)Julie Meyer, P.E., ODOT Area Engineer (construction)Poonsak Sritalapat, Ph.D., P.E., ODOT Project Manager (design)James Calanni, P.E., ODOT District Bridge Engineer (design)Joe Banner, Marucci & Gaffney Excavating (contractor)Dan Wilson, Marucci & Gaffney Excavating (contractor)
Award Ceremony Information:
Person(s) accepting award at ceremony (Name, Email, phone)
Thomas Washko, P.E., GPD Group (HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]"[email protected]), 216-927-8679Cassandra Stevens, ODOT D12 ([email protected]), 216-312-1985Julie Meyer, P.E., ODOT D12 ([email protected]), 216-584-2160
Names to show on certificate, up to 6 persons and their
companies or roles
Thomas Washko, P.E., GPD Group Project ManagerCassandra Stevens, ODOT Project Engineer (construction)Julie Meyer, P.E., ODOT Area Engineer (construction)Poonsak Sritalapat, Ph.D., P.E., ODOT Project Manager (design)James Calanni, P.E., ODOT District Bridge Engineer (design)Joe Banner, Marucci & Gaffney Excavating (contractor)
2
One JPG image to be used on certificate
3
Executive Summary:
Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology
The overall purpose of the project was to replace the slab superstructures of two mainline bridges carrying SR 2 over an unnamed creek in the City of Eastlake, Lake County, Ohio. The primary goals of the project were to minimize impacts to the nearly 80,000 vehicles that travel along SR 2 each day, determine the feasibility and constructability of re-lining the existing bridge openings with a 4-sided box culvert structure, and if found to be feasible complete the design and detailed plans to perform the work. Re-lining the existing structures in place would have the least impact to traffic as no excavation within the SR 2 roadway would be required and thus no extended lane closures or complex maintenance of traffic schemes would be required. Comprehensive (hydrologic and hydraulic) H&H analyses were performed for the existing and proposed structures to ensure that there would be no detrimental impacts to upstream areas during the 50-year design and 100-year storm events. An 18ft x5ft 4-sided precast concrete box culvert structure was found to satisfy both the hydraulic and constructability aspects of the project. Final plans were prepared to re-line the existing slab bridges with the new precast box structure including associated cast-in-place full-height concrete headwall structures at the inlet and outlet locations. The finished project allows for the existing reduced shoulder width conditions across the bridge structures to be be corrected without significant work during a future mainline pavement replacement project on SR 2.
Highlight any unique aspects of the project
The project involved the use of in-place re-lining methods and technologies to effectively replace two existing slab bridges carrying nearly 80,000 vehicled per day without the need to perform any excavation, pavement removal, structure removal or complex MOT on the mainline of SR 2. The plans included suggested details for temporary rail and roller systems to launch the precast 4-sided culvert sections into the existing bridge openings. The contractor successfully used the suggested techniques with minimal variation.
4
Judging Criteria:
A. Project Development Process
1 Project development schedule maintained
a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual
Scoped Design Tracings Completion Date 10/01/2018, Actual Design Tracings Completion Date 10/13/2017. Original Construction Completion Date 10/15/2019, Actual Construction Completion Date 10/15/2019. The project design was completed nearly one year ahead of the originally scoped schedule. The project construction met the original completion date.
2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process
GPD Group provided complete written disposition to all comments generated by ODOT and the Lake County Engineer during the various staged review submittals. All questions or requests made by ODOT were fully explained and/or implemented in the plans as requested.
3 Cooperative and effective project management
As indicated in the CES rating, GPD’s Project Manager provided very good control of the services provided to the District and provided effective and appropriate communication throughout the project. GPD and the State worked well together to make the project a success.
4 CES Score for project 81.1% (4/04/2018)
5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee $88,210.00 Planning through AER & Waterway Permitb. Modifications – Scope and Fee Mod 1-$110,449.00 (Stg 1-final plans); Mod-2-$10,000.00 (ongoing
services)-ongoing services not needed during construction
B. Plan and Contract Quality
1 Project bid cost relative to budget Bid Amount $1,069,273.67, Engineer’s Estimate $1,021,000.00
5
estimates as a measure of fiscal planning
2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on
project(s)77
b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let
31
3 Contract Change Ordersa. Number and value of change orders.
Explain why changes were needed6 Change Orders totaling -$60,286.66
Change Order 1: $11,172.00 (Various Bid Item Adjustments)Change Order 2: $12,028.75 (Various Bid Item Adjustments)Change Order 3: $2,929.48 (614 Paint Items of Work) - A change order was needed to change permanent paint to temporary because SR 2 was being milled 4 days after the striping was complete. Change Order 4: $8,000.00 (Various Bid Item Adjustments)Change Order 5: $4,496.61 (104.02 Adjustment)Change Order 6: -$98,913.50 (Various Bid Item Adjustments)
b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed
None
c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due to CCO's and quantity revisions
Bid Contract Amount $1,069,273.67; Final Contract Amount after Change Orders $1,008,987.01
d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost
-5.6%
4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued prior to 1
6
letting
b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda
Addendum changed acceptance for asphalt from 446 to 448. Minor change to overall construction cost.
C. Alignment and Location Design
1 Alternativesa.
Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway
Based on the nature of the project, alternative structure alignments were not possible. The existing structure was re-lined in place. Multiple culvert sizes were modeled during the hydraulic analysis phase of the design to determine the required opening which maintained tailwater conditions for nearby culverts upstream of the project.
2 Alignment fita.
Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual driveway slopes, etc.
For this project the new culvert headwalls and wingwalls required special geometry to accommodate the logitudinal ditches along SR 2. There was limited space between the ends of the existing bridges and other existing adjacent bridges and culverts under the nearby marginal roadways.
3 Design practicesa.
Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)
The in-place re-line method for this structure replacement eliminated the need for complicated MOT on the SR 2 mainline and thus greatly improved safety for both the traveling public as well as the construction crews. If the existing bridge was replaced using traditional part-width and open cut type construction, crossovers and temporary pavement would likely be required to maintain 3 lanes of traffic. At crossover locations, double median barrier walls and median lighting would have needed to be partially removed and restored after construction is completed. The construction method used for this project required only a lane shift for one direction of SR 2 to allow a short segment of one barrier wall to be removed to access the median area. The project design allowed the work to be completed in one construction season while traditional
7
part-width construction would extend to two construction seasons with multiple extended MOT phases.
D. Cost-Effective Design
1 Safety and maintenance-related considerations. Identify this impact in terms of ODOT construction cost, cost to traveling public, or cost to entire public
As indicated above, the in-place re-line method for this structure replacement eliminated the need for complex MOT schemes on the SR 2 mainline and thus greatly improved safety for both the traveling public and the construction crews. Project construction costs as well as work zone road user costs for the public were all reduced as a result of the project design. The MOT and general construction cost savings to the project are likely in excess of $500,000. Road user cost savings for the nearly 80,000 vehicles per day that use SR 2 at this location likely add many additional thousands of dollars in savings to the public.
2 Project Maintainability The project ultimately results in a new buried bridge structure which greatly reduces maintenance needs as compared to a normal bridge which would require maintenance of the bridge wearing surface, structural deck, railings, approach slabs, etc. The new 18’x5’ bridge opening provides ample space to enter the structure for other maintenance and inspection needs.
E. Complexity of Design
1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices
The project design enabled the replacement of two concrete slab bridges in place without the need to perform complex MOT, pavement removal and existing structure removal. While re-lining of smaller circular culverts is not uncommon, this project required lining a bridge with rectangular waterway opening of approximately 21.5 ft. x7.5 ft. ODOT required that the re-line material be concrete in lieu of other lightweight metal products often used in re-line applications. GPD devised a suggested procedure and details for a rail system and heavy duty rollers to launch the approximate 45,000 pound culvert sections into the bridge openings. The
8
contractor used the suggested plan with little deviation.
2 New technology and products used Due to the long travel distances within the annular space between the existing structure and the new structure during the grouting operations, cellular grout materials were specified in lieu of standard cement grout products. Cellular grouts flow freely over longer distances with reduced concerns for segregaton or development of air pockets.
3 Degree of coordination and timing Due to the nature of the project design which utilized in-place relining of the structure, the degree of coordination and timing for the project was minimized. The contractor was allowed to close one lane of traffic only during permitted periods of the day in accordance with the ODOT District 12 lane closure policies. Therefore the Contractor had to carefully time those operations during permitted lane closure windows.
4 Number and type of controls governing Other than the timing of work operations within any permitted lane closure windows for off loading of materials, etc., a critical part of the project for the contractor was placing the rails for the culvert launching system at the precise line and grade such that the culvert units could be successfully rolled into place. This was critical to prevent binding of the rollers and loss of productivity.
5 Number of traffic control stages 1
F. Community Sensitive Design
1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction
As indicated above, the design of this project enabled all lanes of traffic to be maintained along SR 2 with a lane shift required in the westbound direction only. The structure re-lining methodolgy allowed the project to be completed in one construction season with minimal adverse impact to the traveling public.
2 Preservation of Natural Areas All areas of the project were previously developed or improved.
9
3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation or Wetlands
Limited areas of the SR 2 right-of-way were disturbed by the project. All disturbed vegetated areas were seeded to re-establish the vegetation after completion of the work.
4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features
Not Applicable
5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources Not Applicable
6 Community Sensitive Design Not Applicable
7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal With the project having limited visibility in a mainly commercial/industrial area along SR 2 in Lake County, aesthetic enhancements to the headwall/wingwalls were not used or required by the scope of services.
Location Map(s)
At least one high-level location map. Please attach an IMAGE FILE of your map here (take and upload a snapshot or screen capture image if the original map is only available as a PDF or other non-compatible image file format)
10
11
Photographs
Use the Picture boxes below to add up to 10 digital photos (.JPG or other compatible format) suitable for large-screen display. Before-and-after photos are encouraged. Please use the caption field to provide details on each image.
Photo 1- Existing Outlet at SR 2 Westbound Structure Before Construction
(photo - 12)
Photo 2- New Outlet 18’x5’ Re-Line Culvert at Westbound SR 2, After Construction
(photo - 13)
Photo 3- Removing Soft Soils to Expose Suitable Shale Bearing Strata for Subsequent Cellular Grouting Material, Dry Weather Operation
(photo - 14)
Photo 4- Forming Outlet Headwall Footing Bearing on Shale
(photo - 15)
Photo 5- Completed Outlet Headwall Footing. Rails are Visible for Advancing Culvert Sections Through the Bridge Opening
(photo - 16)
Photo 6- Outlet Culvert Section With Attached Headwall Being Hoisted for Setting
(photo - 17)
Photo 7- Culvert Outlet Sections 1 and 2 Set, Awaiting Section 3 to Be Advanced Through Existing Bridge From the Right
(photo - 18)
Photo 8- Culvert Sections Set With Membrane Waterproofing Applied at SR 2 Median Area
(photo - 19)
Photo 9- Looking Upstream Through New Box, Culvert Section Being Advanced On Rail System in Distance
(photo - 20)
Photo 10- Rail System at SR 2 Median Area
(photo - 21)