the nomination process has two steps: no… · web viewexcellence in highway design. 201. 8....
TRANSCRIPT
ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design
2018 Nomination Template
Project Nomination Deadline: March 5, 2018District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:
March 23, 2018
transportation.ohio.gov www.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 Monday, March 5, 2018
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 Friday, March 23, 2018
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
ODO
T DISTRICT
D-1: Chris Hughes(419) 999-6901
D-2: Mike Gramza(419) 373-4466
D-3: Bob Weaver(419) 207-7158
b o b . w e a v e r@ d o t . oh i o . g ov
D-4: Gery Noirot(330) 786-2270
[email protected]: Jason Sturgeon
(740) 323-5100j as o n .s t u r ge o n @ d o t . o h io . gov
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: Eric Reed(740) 568-3951
[email protected]: Nick Susich
(330) [email protected]
D-12: Greg Kronstain(216) 584-2166
Project Nomination Form
Project Name: HAM-71-01.59
Project PID: 101939
Consultant Agreement No.: 18680
County or Municipality: HAMILTON
ODOT District: ODOT District 8
Consultant Name: Palmer Engineering Company
Category for which project is being nominated Category 2: Construction Value - $5,000,001 to $20,000,000
Construction Value $9,461,811
Construction Project Number 160392
Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion
PS&E 3/21/16Letting (Sale) 6/16/16Construction Complete 9/1/17
Name of Organization Submitting Palmer Engineering Company/District 8 ODOT
Contact person for award-related material/submittal (Name, email, phone,
mailing address)
Charles Rowe, PE [email protected] South State Route 741, Lebanon, Ohio 45036
1
Region Contact Person and their role N/A
Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus
(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.
Charles Rowe, PE --- ODOT PMScott Kraus, PE --- District Work Zone Traffic EngineerBronson Funke, PE --- Consultant PMDaniel Ficker, PE --- Lead Roadway and MOT Design
Award Ceremony Information:
Person(s) accepting award at ceremony (Name, Email, phone)
Same as Project Personnel
Names to show on certificate, up to 6 persons and their
companies or roles
Same as Project Personnel
One JPG image to be used on certificate
2
Executive Summary:
Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology
Fast-track bridge rehabilitation design to repair complex, urban, mainline I-71 bridge deck in poor condition and deteriorating rapidly. Primary goal was to complete design, advertisement, sale, award, and construction completion in less than 18 months. Traditional bridge deck replacement design methodology but required significant coordination with a wide range of public and private stakeholders.
Highlight any unique aspects of the project
Complex maintenance of traffic scheme using cross-overs required to keep both directions of I-71 fully functional. Detailed sequence of construction planning to coordinate with and accommodate maintenance of traffic patterns associated with the major reconstruction of Lytle Tunnel (400’ south of bridge). Extensive coordination with City of Cincinnati for maintenance of local vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as coordination with Proctor & Gamble for disruption of parking areas under the bridge. Complex geometry and features of existing structure including partial-length beams, curved horizontal alignment, fracture-critical steel pier caps, and extensive lighting system attached to structure.
3
Judging Criteria:
A. Project Development Process
1 Project development schedule maintained
a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual
Actual: Scoped:Consultant Authorized: 11/25/15 2/2/15Stage 2: N/A 6/2/16Stage 3: N/A 7/29/16Tracings Complete: 3/1/16 9/9/16Plan Package to CO: 3/21/16 10/17/16
2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process
Direct communication and multiple working meetings with key personel to resolve issues on the spot to avoid prioritization delays by others. Site meetings with construction, design, utility, and local agency personnel to facilitate rapid resolution of conflicts.
3 Cooperative and effective project management
Consistent, effective, and focused communication between designer and Department to address design and construction conflicts rapidly. Incorporated input from all stakeholders to expedite plan reviews and bidding process. Proactive bidding process where designers addressed valid pre-bid questions without prior direction from the Department.
4 CES Score for project 83.6% --- combined with overall interstate rehab project (HAM-71-1.34)
5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee This agreement involves accelerating the HAM-71-0159 bridge work and making it
its own project to sell FY2017 due to unmanageable deck conditions - $554,540b. Modifications – Scope and Fee ODOT Requested to add work on 0154E Bridge – $28,858
ODOT Requested to add work for temporary re-striping on I-471 Ramp due to KYTC project that reduced the number of lanes on the Brent Spence Bridge for 60 days and additional work related to an
4
existing barrier that was attached to a MSE wall - $19,628
B. Plan and Contract Quality
1 Project bid cost relative to budget estimates as a measure of fiscal planning
ODOT Budget - $10,232,826.63Low Bid - $9,461,811.00
2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on
project(s)188
b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let
164
3 Contract Change Ordersa. Number and value of change orders.
Explain why changes were needed1- $950 – Truss relocation2- $18,628 – replace rumble strip3- ($7,368) – pole and power credit4- $59,182 – owner requested patching on adjacent bridge deck5- $25,000 – owner requested patching on adjacent bridge deck6- $35,706 – owner requested patching on adjacent bridge deck7- $11,399 – unknown SB FWD abutment backwall repaire needed8- $0 – time extension9- $26,956 - NB/SB 71 runmble strip10-$12,583 – SB deck winter protection to set rebar11-$98,483 – Bid Quantity adjustment – crossover pavement for
MOT APP north crossover12- n/a13-$9,345 – pump truck access pad14-$10,000 – Replace crash attenuator15-$52,796 – quantity adjustment16-($167,125) – quantity adjustment17-$56,444 – cross frame repair
5
b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed
No design changes were required
c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due to CCO's and quantity revisions
$242,982
d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost
2.5%
4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued prior to
letting4
b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda
1 – revision to as per plan grinding note – minimal construction cost change2 – revise MOT quantities – minimal increase due to additional quantities3 – clarified requirements for pedestrian canopy under structure – no cost change.4 – General clarifications – minimal construction cost change
C. Alignment and Location Design
1 Alternativesa.
Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway
N/A – retaining existing H & V alignments
2 Alignment fita.
Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual
N/A – existing bridge superstructure rehabilitation
6
driveway slopes, etc.
3 Design practicesa.
Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)
Minor - such as improved drainage appurtenances, improved lighting and signage
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
Redesign of original City of Cincinnati style scuppers to a more maintainable design (minor cost effect); Maintenance of traffic design based on isolation of one side of twin bridge to improve final product. Goal was to keep traffic off of deck under construction. This goal required extensive MOT design and coordination. Pedestrian canopy specifications in plans for surface streets.
2 Project Maintainability Due to the location of this project it is very difficult to maintain in general. The Contractor was not permitted to use bridge mounted PCB to eliminate any additional holes being drilled into the new bridge deck. The goal was to maximize the life of the bridge deck.
E. Complexity of Design
1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices
Complex horizontal alignment on complex girder system required extensive measurement of existing structural units. Custom design of complex end and intermediate expansion joints to match existing beams and proposed deck elevations. Effective use and coordination of multiple analysis and design platforms (Geopak/MS, MDX, Excel) to accurately determine deck elevations. Superstructure components designed to cost-effectively consider incorporation of original components into the updated structure (such as scuppers, lighting supports and conduit design, fracture-critical steel pier caps). Extensive coordination with multiple entities (adjacent projects, local land use, City of Cincinnati, local
7
businesses) in the preparation of maintenance of traffic plans.
2 New technology and products used Used existing software and equipment enhanced by improved technology such as use of survey scanning equipment to effectively measure locations and elevations of superstructure components. Polypropylene fibers and corrosion inhibitors added to the mix via plan notes.
3 Degree of coordination and timing Required highest degree of coordination between design team, district staff, and local authorities to meet extremely aggressive design scheduled (3 months from acceleration notification to submission of final tracings). Notification of need to expedite design received in November 2015 with Final Tracings due March 1, 2016. Extensive planning and coordination with on-going Lytle Tunnel Reconstruction for maintenance of traffic and construction sequence planning. Sequence coordination to accommodate City of Cincinnati local events.
4 Number and type of controls governing Poor and rapidly deteriorating condtion of bridge deck; accommodation of private use of ODOT property under structure; maintaining full functionality of Interstate 71, local streets, and sidewalks; accommodation of recreational area adjacent to the bridge; coordination with adjacent major reconstruction of the Lytle Tunnel
5 Number of traffic control stages 4 – two main bridge construction phases, a pre-construction phase, and a post-construction phase. 4 additional subphases (including winter shutdown phase) related to coordination with Lytle Tunnel MOT phasing; additional phases designed during construction to facilitate contractor work tasks.
F. Community Sensitive Design
1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction
Extensive planning and design for ramp closures requiring significant public outreach and coordination with local officials; MOT design for interstate and local streets designed to maintain existing
8
capacities in safest manner possible; design of pedestrian enclosures; discussions and adjustments to plans to minimize impact to P&G parking areas
2 Preservation of Natural Areas N/A
3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation or Wetlands
N/A
4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features
N/A
5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources N/A
6 Community Sensitive Design N/A
7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal Improved lighting
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)
9
10
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.
Underside of Existing Bridge
(photo - 11)
I-471 SB Ramp Under HAM-71-0159
(photo - 12)
Lighting Conduits and Electric Transformers at Rear Abutment
(photo - 13)
Looking North at I-71 SB Bridge; 6th Street Viaduct overhead
(photo - 14)
HAM-71-0159 Looking South from Pedestrian Bridge
(photo - 15)
North Portal of Lytle Tunnel from Rear Abutment of HAM-71-0159
(photo - 16)
Looking SB during Stage 1 Construction
(photo - 17)
Phase 1 Crossover MOT Scheme
(photo - 18)
Forming Deck
(photo - 19)
Aerial Photo- Looking West at Completion
(photo - 20)