ohio department of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Ohio Department of Transportation
w w w. t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . o h i o . g o v
John R. Kasich, Governor • Jerry Wray, Director
Best Value Design BuildOwner’s Perspective
Megan O’Callaghan, PE, Esq.Deputy Director
Division of Construction Management
2
35th in Size
7th in Population
4th largest interstate system with 6,700 lane miles
2nd largest total number of bridges with 43,412
Single day’s drive from 60% of U.S. and Canada
2014 Construction Program 1,000 projects Estimated $2.2 Billion
2
3
Design-Build Background
Authority to Pilot in 1995
Current Authority 2011 (ORC 5517.011)
Value-Based selection process (Quality + Price)
$1 Billion per year limit
Stipends – Max 2 per Project
DB Program Development
Industry Input
4
2 DB Methods
Least Cost (aka One-Step)
Contract is awarded to the lowest bidder.
8-12 Week Advertising
Value Based (aka Two-Step)
Combination of quality and cost.
SOQ = 8 weeks
RFP = 20-22 weeks
3
5
Why Value Based?
Owner’s PerspectiveTrue Best Value potential
More Qualified Builder
Innovation & “Betterments”
Speed
6
4
7
3 Phase Process
1. Statement of Qualifications & Shortlisting
2. Alternative Technical Concepts
3. Technical Proposal
Stipend Policy = ¼% - 1% of Estimate
8
Statement of Qualifications
Shortlisted to “approximately” 3
By law, allowed to pay 2 Stipends
50 page submittals
Evaluation per RFQ – comparison between teams
5
9
SOQ Evaluation Criteria
9
Topic Evaluation Criteria Maximum Points
Project
Understanding and
Approach
How well does the DBT’s SOQ demonstrate an in-
depth understanding of the design and construction
requirements of the project?
30
Design Build Project
Team
How well do the DBT’s qualifications, experience and
time availability relate to the requirements of the
project?
40
DBT Capabilities
How well does the DBT’s SOQ communicate their
design, construction and project management
experience for this project?
30
Total 100
10
Alternative Technical Concepts
Cost and Schedule not considered
“Equal or Better” consideration done in terms of life cycle
Confidential “1-on-1” meetings
Official Submittal in writing – Official response in writing
6
11
Technical Proposal
Direct Point Scoring
Weighted Scoring per Criteria
Minimum Score for Responsiveness
No more then 3 criteria under 70
No more then 1 under 60
70% Price - 30% Score
12
Technical Proposal
Criteria Score
MOT and Construction Access 20
Design Management 5
Proposed Design 20
Construction Management 5
Construction 20
Quality Management 15
Outreach to DBEs and OJT 5
TOTAL 100
7
13
Litigation
“The girder depth for the main span portion of the I-90 viaduct shall vary parabolically…”
Scope Requirement:
14
Scoping Example #3
Straight Line
8
15
Litigation
The 2nd DBT filed an injunction.
Claimed the winning DBT’s bridge beam shape is not a Parabola and did not comply with scope.
#1 was nonresponsive.
The winning DBT had a reasonable interpretation. When the bridge beam depth does vary, it varies in a parabolic shape.
16
Welcome
Ferzan AhmedDeputy Director, ODOT District 6
Before
9
17
Welcome
Ferzan AhmedDeputy Director, ODOT District 6
Future Rendering
18
Process Changes:
Cleveland to Columbus
Changed scoring to include Duration into award Formula
Removed the ATC meeting
Quality Management process requirements
10
19
Litigation
Technical Proposal deemed non-responsive
Modification to the approved Interchange Modification Study – Prohibited by Scope
Similar modifications requested in ATC from other proposers – denied in ATC process
Sued for Stipend Value – ultimately paid
20
Cleveland Innerbelt 2
Construction of “Sister” Bridge
Aesthetically resemble the first project
Initiated as a Design-Build-Finance
Being Finalized as Design-Build
11
21
Moving Forward
Alternative Project Delivery Task Force
Expand Shortlisting Process
$25 - $80 Million (Shortlisting – Least Cost)
More ATCs
Better Scopes!
Design Build Contract Administration Training
22