minnesota department of transportation design-build introduction program november 30, 2000 ron...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Design-Build Introduction Program
Design-Build Introduction Program
November 30, 2000November 30, 2000Ron Williams, PE
State Construction EngineerArizona Department of Transportation
Ron Williams, PEState Construction Engineer
Arizona Department of Transportation
![Page 2: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Arizona’s New Design-Build Law and Experience
![Page 3: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
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.
![Page 4: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
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.
![Page 5: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
• 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
![Page 6: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Reasons for Design-Build
• Earlier Completion
• Permits Phase Work
• Allows Concurrent Operations
• Encourages Joint Contractor/Engineer Planning
• Permits Innovative Financing
• Single Source Responsibility
• Earlier Completion
• Permits Phase Work
• Allows Concurrent Operations
• Encourages Joint Contractor/Engineer Planning
• Permits Innovative Financing
• Single Source Responsibility
![Page 7: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
ADOT Project Scheduling Comparison
Initial Design Concept & EISInitial Design Concept & EIS Traditional (Design-Bid-Build)Traditional (Design-Bid-Build)DesignDesign
ROWROW
BidBid
Utility ClearanceUtility Clearance
ConstructionConstruction
Initial Design Concept & EISInitial Design Concept & EIS Select FirmSelect Firm
DesignDesign
ROWROW
Utility ClearanceUtility Clearance
ConstructionConstruction
Design-Build (Select-Design-Build)Design-Build (Select-Design-Build)
44 88 1212 1616MonthsMonths
Time Savings
![Page 8: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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.
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.
![Page 9: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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.
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.
![Page 10: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Design-Build History
![Page 11: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
• 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
![Page 12: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Design-Build Authorization
Senate Bill 1253
ARS 28 1812
One ADOT Project Pima County
One ADOT Project Maricopa County
One Project Maricopa County
1996
Senate Bill 1253
ARS 28 1812
One ADOT Project Pima County
One ADOT Project Maricopa County
One Project Maricopa County
1996
![Page 13: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Process Development(Use Existing Documents Whenever
Possible)• Design Scoping Document• Revised Standard Specifications General
Conditions• Revised Contract Documents• Technical (Section 200-1000) Standard
Specifications• Project Specific Special Provisions
• Design Scoping Document• Revised Standard Specifications General
Conditions• Revised Contract Documents• Technical (Section 200-1000) Standard
Specifications• Project Specific Special Provisions
![Page 14: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Method/Prescriptive Specs
Performance Specs
Design-Build is a Combination of Both
Design-Build is a Combination of Both
![Page 15: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Design-BuildDevelopment Team
Deputy State Engineer, OperationsAssistant State Engineer, Construction Group
Assistant State Engineer, Design GroupAssistant State Engineer, Valley Project Management Group
Assistant State Engineer, Statewide Project Management GroupAssistant State Engineer, Support Services Group
Manager, Engineering Consultant ContractsManager, Contracts & Specifications Services
Project Manager, Tucson DistrictProject Manager, Phoenix District
Assistant Attorney General, ADOT LegalAssociated General Contractors
Arizona Consulting engineer AssociationFederal Highway Administration
Deputy State Engineer, OperationsAssistant State Engineer, Construction Group
Assistant State Engineer, Design GroupAssistant State Engineer, Valley Project Management Group
Assistant State Engineer, Statewide Project Management GroupAssistant State Engineer, Support Services Group
Manager, Engineering Consultant ContractsManager, Contracts & Specifications Services
Project Manager, Tucson DistrictProject Manager, Phoenix District
Assistant Attorney General, ADOT LegalAssociated General Contractors
Arizona Consulting engineer AssociationFederal Highway Administration
![Page 16: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
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
![Page 17: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
• 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.
![Page 18: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Arizona’s Alternative Contracting Legislation
HB 2340
2000 Legislative Session
Internet Addresshttp://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/laws/0135.htm
HB 2340
2000 Legislative Session
Internet Addresshttp://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/laws/0135.htm
![Page 19: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Design-Build Projects
![Page 20: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
I-10/Cortaro RoadInterchange Reconstruction
Bid July 1997 $2,760,500
Complete August 1998 $3,714,75*
Bid July 1997 $2,760,500
Complete August 1998 $3,714,75*
Completed four months ahead of conventional Design-Bid-Build
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.
Developer contributed $500,000 to cost of project.
*Encountered large areas of unstable subgrade that need to be replaced.
1st Project
![Page 21: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
• 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
![Page 23: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
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
![Page 24: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Phoenix Black Canyon FreewayI-17 — Thomas to Peoria Corridor
ImprovementAdd 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
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
2nd Project
![Page 25: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
I-17 History and Plan
Thomas Road Bridge 1992Indian School Bridge 1996Dunlap Bridge 1997Northern Bridge 1998Bethany Bridge 1998I-17 Widening at Thomas 1995I-17 Widening Peoria North 1996Camelback and Glendale Bridges 2001Remaining Widening 2004
Thomas Road Bridge 1992Indian School Bridge 1996Dunlap Bridge 1997Northern Bridge 1998Bethany Bridge 1998I-17 Widening at Thomas 1995I-17 Widening Peoria North 1996Camelback and Glendale Bridges 2001Remaining Widening 2004
12 Years — Too Long!! Let’s Get Done
12 Years — Too Long!! Let’s Get Done
![Page 26: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
• 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
![Page 28: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
• 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$1.7 Million Dollars Motorist Delay Savings
![Page 29: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Design-Build Typical Team Composition
ContractorContractorPrime Subcontractors
1 2 (P)
1 5 (2P)
1 - (1P)
1 -
1 2 (P)
1 1 (P)
Prime Subcontractors
1 2 (P)
1 5 (2P)
1 - (1P)
1 -
1 2 (P)
1 1 (P)
Design FirmsDesign FirmsPrime Subcontractors
1 4
1 -
1 3
1 -
1 5
1 3
Prime Subcontractors
1 4
1 -
1 3
1 -
1 5
1 3
On the I-17 Project, 36 percent of work is by subcontractors
70 Subcontractors11 Engineering Firms
On the I-17 Project, 36 percent of work is by subcontractors
70 Subcontractors11 Engineering Firms
![Page 30: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
I-17 Design-Build Incentive Performance Summary
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
$600,000
$1,162,909
$417,989
$150,000
$241,371
$400,000
$300,000
$600,000
$600,000
$487,599
$271,807
IncentivePotential Amount
Available Amount Earned
100%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
42%
65%
% of Available
![Page 31: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Change Order Log
11a2345677a7b89101111a11b1213141516
#
Shoulder 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 & Dunlap
Approximate Total
Description
$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$0.00
$165,870.13$3,606.47$9,162.78
$86,472.60$21,802.89
$100,527.64
$4,364,639.99
Value
Finalized 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 C.O. 13Finalized F.A. 1F.A. 2F.A. 3Finalized C.O. 14
Status/Comments
16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added16 Change Orders — 4.9% — $2 Million Value Added
![Page 32: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
SR 68 Davis Dam - Kingman HighwayBullhead 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
• Convert Two-Lane to Four-Lane Highway
• Approximate Cost $45 Million
• Construction Start April 2000
• Anticipated Completion November 2001
• Original Completion July 2004
3rd Project
![Page 33: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
SR 68Davis Dam - Kingman Highway
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
Design-Build FirmTechnical
Proposal Score Price Proposal
$42,118,780119.7
$38,828,846105.7
$53,701,360114.6
PriceTech. Proposal
351,869
367,349
468,598
BestValue
Seven Firms Submitted RFQsSeven Firms Submitted RFQs
![Page 35: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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 00-04 — five-year program
GNS Loans — $100 Million due to 30-36 month construction time
• 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 00-04 — five-year program
GNS Loans — $100 Million due to 30-36 month construction time
4th Project
![Page 36: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
US 60/Superstition Freeway
• Design-Bid-Build Process:– Require minimum four separate construction projects– Require 18 month design time, then 18-24 month
construction time per project– Last segment would advertise in FY04 with
completion in FY06
• Design-Bid-Build Process:– Require minimum four separate construction projects– Require 18 month design time, then 18-24 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
Using Design-Build Process Saves a Minimum of 1 1/2 Years
![Page 37: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Design-Bid PackageProposal Contents
A Proposal ProcessA-IPublic Advertisement
A-II Introduction
B Request for Qualifications
C Request for ProposalC-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)
D Contract Documents
A Proposal ProcessA-IPublic Advertisement
A-II Introduction
B Request for Qualifications
C Request for ProposalC-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)
D Contract Documents
![Page 38: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Request for Qualifications Format
US 60 Design-Build ProjectPart 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’sInformation Form N/A 5
Part E Work History Form N/A 5
Total 100 50
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’sInformation Form N/A 5
Part E Work History Form N/A 5
Total 100 50
![Page 39: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
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
![Page 40: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Project Team Organization
![Page 41: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
I-17 Design-Build Team
Project Managers:Terry Bourland - Development
John Akin - Construction
QualityAllan Samuels
QualityAllan Samuels
PartneringGinger Murdough
PartneringGinger Murdough
MaterialsGeorge Way
MaterialsGeorge Way
AGCAGC
City of PhoenixCity of Phoenix
StructuresJim Pyne
StructuresJim Pyne
FMSManny Agah
FMSManny Agah
Traffic EngineeringRichard Moeur
Traffic EngineeringRichard Moeur
UtilitiesVern Pagel
Brad Mortensen
UtilitiesVern Pagel
Brad Mortensen
Right-of-WayDave Edwards
Pete Main
Right-of-WayDave Edwards
Pete Main
LegalJoe Acosta
LegalJoe Acosta
ACEAACEA
ECSRon Thomas
ECSRon Thomas
FHWABill Vachon
FHWABill Vachon
C & SRichard Murphy
C & SRichard Murphy
Consultant EngineersDMJM
Kimley-Horn
Consultant EngineersDMJM
Kimley-Horn Sponsors:Ron Williams - Process/Facilitator
Dan Lance - ConstructionSteve Jimenez - Development
![Page 42: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
ADOT Design-Build Organization
ADOT Develop ScopeADOT Develop Scope ADOT Oversight & QA CheckingADOT Oversight & QA Checking
Design-BuildDesign-Build
ConstructConstructDevelopDevelop
Develop ScopeThrough
Use of Consultants
Develop ScopeThrough
Use of Consultants
ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities
![Page 43: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Design-Build Short & Long-Term Organization for I-17 Corridor
ProjectState EngineerState Engineer
Project Manager
Terry Bourland
Project Manager
Terry Bourland
District ConstructionDistrict Construction
Resident Engineer
John Akin
Resident Engineer
John Akin
Technical GroupsTechnical Groups
Design-Build Process
Ron Williams
Design-Build Process
Ron Williams
ADOT DevelopmentADOT Development
Technical GroupsTechnical Groups
![Page 44: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
ADOT Design-Build TeamPossible Issue Resolution Structure
State EngineerState Engineer
Project Manager
Terry Bourland
Project Manager
Terry Bourland
Design-Build Process Manager
Ron Williams
Design-Build Process Manager
Ron Williams
ADOT Development GroupsTechnical Manager
ADOT Development GroupsTechnical Manager
Granite-SundtManagement Board*
Granite-SundtManagement Board*
Or ADOTManagement Team
Or ADOTManagement Team
District Engineer
Dan Lance
District Engineer
Dan LanceProject DirectorProject Director
Daily OperationsDaily Operations
District ConstructionTechnical Manager
District ConstructionTechnical Manager
Development Technical Leader
Development Technical Leader
Eric CroweEric Crowe
Construction Technical Leader
Construction Technical Leader
John AkinJohn Akin
Design ManagerDesign Manager Quality ManagerConstruction
Quality ManagerConstruction
ConstructionManager
ConstructionManager
*Granite Sundt in Yellow*Granite Sundt in Yellow
Project Manager coordinates all activities within scope, schedule, budget, parameters.Project Manager coordinates all activities within scope, schedule, budget, parameters.
EscalationEscalation
![Page 45: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Design Team Coordination with Construction and Maintenance
StaffTuesdays (AM)Tuesdays (AM)
Design Team MeetingD-B Project Manager
Design ManagerDeputy Design ManagerChief Roadway EngineerDesign Quality Manager
Construction Quality ManagerTask Leaders (as req’d)ADOT PM & Other Reps
Design Status Progress
Design Team MeetingD-B Project Manager
Design ManagerDeputy Design ManagerChief Roadway EngineerDesign Quality Manager
Construction Quality ManagerTask Leaders (as req’d)ADOT PM & Other Reps
Design Status Progress
Tuesdays (PM)Tuesdays (PM)
Design/Construction MeetingDesign Manager
Deputy Design ManagerTask Leaders (as req’d
Construction Project Engineer
Updated Design Schedule
Design/Construction MeetingDesign Manager
Deputy Design ManagerTask Leaders (as req’d
Construction Project Engineer
Updated Design Schedule
Wednesday (PM)Wednesday (PM)
Construction Schedule MeetingD-B Project Manager
Construction Quality ManagerConstruction Manager
Construction Project Engineer(and staff)
Field SupervisorPublic Relations Manager
Update 5-WeekConstruction Schedule
Construction Schedule MeetingD-B Project Manager
Construction Quality ManagerConstruction Manager
Construction Project Engineer(and staff)
Field SupervisorPublic Relations Manager
Update 5-WeekConstruction Schedule
Thursdays (AM)Thursdays (AM)
Design-Build Schedule/Quality MeetingADOT Resident EngineerADOT Project Manager
ADOT Other Reps (as req’d)D-B Project ManagerConstruction Manager
Construction Quality ManagerSafety ManagerDesign Manager
DPS/Law EnforcementConstruction Project Engineer
2 Superintendents1 Field Engineer
Design-Build Schedule/Quality MeetingADOT Resident EngineerADOT Project Manager
ADOT Other Reps (as req’d)D-B Project ManagerConstruction Manager
Construction Quality ManagerSafety ManagerDesign Manager
DPS/Law EnforcementConstruction Project Engineer
2 Superintendents1 Field Engineer
Thursdays (PM)Thursdays (PM)
ADOT Public Relations MeetingADOT District PR RepD-B Project Manager
Public Relations ManagerDesign Manager
Construction Project ManagerMOT Engineer
Regional Traffic Engineer
Updated Public Informationfor Release on Friday
ADOT Public Relations MeetingADOT District PR RepD-B Project Manager
Public Relations ManagerDesign Manager
Construction Project ManagerMOT Engineer
Regional Traffic Engineer
Updated Public Informationfor Release on Friday
![Page 46: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
I-17 Design-Build Plan Review and Release Process
Plan Developed by Lead DisciplinePlan Developed by Lead Discipline
Plan Routed to All Other Technical Disciplines and Construction StaffPlan Routed to All Other Technical Disciplines and Construction Staff
Plan Revised by Lead DisciplinePlan Revised by Lead Discipline
Constructibility InputConstructibility Input Plan Developed by Lead DisciplinePlan Developed by Lead Discipline
50% Comment Resolution Meeting50% Comment Resolution Meeting
Plan Revised by Lead DisciplinePlan Revised by Lead Discipline
80% Comment Resolution Meeting80% Comment Resolution Meeting
Audit of QC DocumentationAudit of QC Documentation
Design Team Manager Approves for ConstructionDesign Team Manager Approves for Construction
Construction Project Engineer Releases Plan for ConstructionConstruction Project Engineer Releases Plan for Construction
ADOT Attendance & CommentADOT Attendance & Comment
ADOT Attendance & CommentADOT Attendance & Comment
Constructibility InputConstructibility Input
![Page 47: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Utility Relationships
![Page 48: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
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
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
![Page 49: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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
• 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
![Page 50: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
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
• 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
![Page 51: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Selection of Best Value Offer for Design-Build
Projects
![Page 52: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Selection Process — Two Step
Request for Qualifications — Team
Request for Proposal — Technical
Request for Qualifications — Team
Request for Proposal — Technical
![Page 53: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Best Value Proposal
Cost
Technical Score
Cost
Technical Score
![Page 54: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
SR 68 Evaluation PanelsShort List Panel
1. George Wallace, PE Pre-Design 21+ years with ADOT, PE for 23 yearsPre-Design Section Manager
2. Debra Brisk, PE Kingman District 16 years with ADOT, PE for 12, yearsKingman District Engineer
3. Julie Trunk FHWA 11 years with FHWA, non-PE position,materials background
4. Dee Bowling EnvironmentalPlanning
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
Panel MemberPanel Member SectionSection QualificationsQualifications
![Page 55: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
SR 68 Evaluation PanelsTechnical Proposal Panel
1. Bahram Dariush, PE S/W ProjectManagement
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
Panel MemberPanel Member SectionSection QualificationsQualifications
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
![Page 56: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
SR 68 Design-Build Project
Panel#1
Panel#1
Panel#2
Panel#2
Panel#3
Panel#3
Panel#4
Panel#4
Panel#5
Panel#5
Panel#6
Panel#6
Panel#7
Panel#7FirmFirm AvgAvg RankRank
1. Kiewit Western 105 137 124 130 115 124 103 119.7 1
3. Sundt/Granite 93 115 117 131 122 120 104 114.6 2
2. Pulice 81 103 99 122 106 115 114 105.7 3
Overall Ranking by Score SelectionOverall Ranking by Score Selection
Panel#1
Panel#1
Panel#2
Panel#2
Panel#3
Panel#3
Panel#4
Panel#4
Panel#5
Panel#5
Panel#6
Panel#6
Panel#7
Panel#7FirmFirm AvgAvg RankRank
1. Kiewit Western 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1.6 1
3. Sundt/Granite 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1.7 2
2. Pulice 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2.7 3
Overall Ranking by Rank Order SelectionOverall Ranking by Rank Order Selection
![Page 57: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
SR 68 Design-Build Project
Panel#1
Panel#1
Panel#2
Panel#2
Panel#3
Panel#3
Panel#4
Panel#4
Panel#5
Panel#5
Panel#6
Panel#6
Panel#7
Panel#7Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria AvgAvg
#1Frim#1
Frim
1. Responsiveness to RFP 71 43 58 49 60 54 59 60 54.7 62.7 -8.0
2. Innovation 32 17 19 24 29 25 26 25 23.6 27.0 -3.4
3. Construction 30 19 23 21 29 23 25 25 23.6 26.0 -2.4
4. Oral Interviews 5 2 3 5 4 4 5 4 3.9 4.0 -0.1
Maximum Possible Points (RFP) 138 81 103 99 122 106 115 114 105.7 119.7 -14.0
Rank Orders 3 3 3 3 3 3 1
MaxPtsMaxPts D
iffe
ren
ceD
iffe
ren
ce
Firm: Pulice Rank: 3Representative:
Panel Composition:1 Spmg - Phx2 Kingman District3 Bridge Group4 Materials Group5 ACEA6 FHWA7 Traffic
Firm: Pulice Rank: 3Representative:
Panel Composition:1 Spmg - Phx2 Kingman District3 Bridge Group4 Materials Group5 ACEA6 FHWA7 Traffic
Selection DebriefingSelection Debriefing
![Page 58: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
SR 68 Design-Build Project
Panel#1
Panel#1
Panel#2
Panel#2
Panel#3
Panel#3
Panel#4
Panel#4
Panel#5
Panel#5
Panel#6
Panel#6
Panel#7
Panel#7Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria AvgAvg
1. Responsiveness to RFP 71 55 70 64 66 62 65 57 62.7
2. Innovation 32 22 32 30 30 25 28 22 27.0
3. Construction 30 24 30 27 29 24 26 22 26.0
4. Oral Interviews 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 2 4.0
Maximum Possible Points (RFP) 138 105 137 124 130 115 124 103 119.7
Rank Orders 1 1 1 2 2 1 3
Selection DebriefingSelection Debriefing
MaxPtsMaxPts
Firm: Kiewit Western Rank: 1Representative:
Panel Composition:1 Spmg - Phx2 Kingman District3 Bridge Group4 Materials Group5 ACEA6 FHWA7 Traffic
Firm: Kiewit Western Rank: 1Representative:
Panel Composition:1 Spmg - Phx2 Kingman District3 Bridge Group4 Materials Group5 ACEA6 FHWA7 Traffic
![Page 59: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Request for Qualifications Format
US 60 Design-Build Project
State Estimate
Kiewit Western Co.
Pulice Construction, Inc.
Sundt/Granite, J.V
BidderBidder
Technical Proposal
Score (TPS)
Technical Proposal
Score (TPS)
PriceProposal
PriceProposal
Adjusted Score(AS)=
(PP)(TPS)
Adjusted Score(AS)=
(PP)(TPS)
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
Bid Opening: 06/09/00Bid Opening: 06/09/00
![Page 60: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
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
• 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
![Page 61: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Review Comments — SR 68Kiewit 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
• 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
![Page 62: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Review Comments — SR 68Pulice/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
• 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
![Page 63: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Bid TabulationsI-17 Design-Build Project
Engineer
J.D. Abrams, Inc.
Granite/Sundt
Meadow Valley/Parsons Brinkerhoff
BidderBidderTechnical
ScoreTechnical
Score
N/A
85.30
88.10
85.90
Proposed Days
Proposed Days
910
700
609
800
“A” = PriceProposal
“A” = PriceProposal
$64,749,450
$89,917,800
$79,729,000
$93,017,800
“B” = TimeValue
“B” = TimeValue
$14,560,000
$11,200,000
$9,744,000
$12,800,000
“A+B”=Adjusted Price
“A+B”=Adjusted Price
$79,309,450
$101,117,800
$89,473,000
$105,817,800
“A+B”/TPS=Adjusted Score
“A+B”/TPS=Adjusted Score
N/A
$1,185,437
$1,015,584
$1,231,871
Bid Opening: 11/13/98Bid Opening: 11/13/98
![Page 64: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
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
• Extra Widening for Typical Section
• Improved NB Transition to H.O.V.
• Clearly Defined Organization
• Outside — In Approach Permitted Completion One Year Early
![Page 65: Minnesota Department of Transportation Design-Build Introduction Program November 30, 2000 Ron Williams, PE State Construction Engineer Arizona Department](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062404/5515716c550346486b8b4f1a/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Cortaro Road Design-Build
1 892 873 874 835 816 807 71
Average87.6
84.1to get in
I-17 Design-Build
1 882 883 874 845 75
Average87.6
84.1to get in
1 88.62 81.83 74.4
1 88.12 85.93 85.3
SR 68 Design-Build
1 912 903 894 875 836 817 74
Average90
86.4to get in
FirmAve
Score FirmAve
Score FirmAve
Score
FirmAve
Score FirmAve
Score
Fin
al S
elec
tio
nS
ho
rt L
ist
Pro
cess