CASTO Session 49 ODOT TIMS

BUYING IN BULKVILLAGE OF SILVERTON Multi-Jurisdictional Paving Program

SILVERTON, OHIO

BUYING IN BULK | OTEC 2015


COMMUNITIES

POPULATION SQUARE MILESAmberley Village 3,585 3.50 Deer Park 5,736 0.87Silverton 4,788 1.10

2013-20153 GENERATIONS OF PROJECTS

1 Bid Package2 Separate Contracts

Projects: South Ave (Silverton),Redmont Ave (Deer Park)

1 Bid Package1 Contract

Projects: Stewart Rd (Silverton),Various Streets (Amberly Village)

2 Separate Bid Packages2 Separate Contracts

Projects: Diehl Ave (Silverton),Dalton Ave (Deer Park)

1ST GENERATION

2ND GENERATION

3RD GENERATION

2013 2014 2015


DIEHL AVE. FUNDING

DALTON AVE. FUNDING

Local LocalOPWC OPWCGCWW CDBG

GCWW

1ST GENERATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION


ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESBids are timed together Contractor not guaranteed

both projectsEach community can award to their preferred bidder

Two separate contracts

Potential for two separate contractors

2 Separate Bid Packages, 2 Separate ContractsProjects: Diehl Ave (Silverton), Dalton Ave (Deer Park)

1ST GENERATION

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES


Fred A. Nemann Co. lowest bidder for Diehl Avenue, Village of SilvertonRack & Ballauer Excavating Company lowest bidder for Dalton Avenue, City of Deer Park. R&B did not complete MBE paperwork required for CDBG funding and was considered a non-responsive bidder. Next low Bidder, Fred A. Nemann Co. was awarded the contract

1ST GENERATION OUTCOME


1ST GENERATION OUTCOME


•Funding requirements that differ between communities can complicate selection process•Multiple contractors and multiple contracts do not streamline construction administration•Single contractor may not have resources to complete both projects within schedule

1ST GENERATION LESSONS LEARNED


2ND GENERATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

SOUTH AVE. FUNDING

REDMONT AVE. FUNDING

Local LocalOPWC OPWCCDBG GCWWGCWW


ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESBids are combined Single contractor may not be

the lowest bidder for a community

Contractor will be awarded both projects

Two separate contracts

Lower bid pricing Unbalanced bidding potentialSize of project may limit the no. of bidders

1 Bid Package, 2 Separate ContractsProjects: South Ave (Silverton), Redmont Ave (Deer

Park)

2ND GENERATION



Howell Contractors, Inc. was overall lowest and responsive bidder.Howell Contractors, Inc. lowest bidder for roadway work, NOT lowest bids for the GCWW work.Contractor did not have the resources to complete both projects within the contract terms.Silverton Contract closed out September 2015.Deer Park Contract still not closed out.

2ND GENERATION OUTCOME


2ND GENERATION OUTCOME


• Funding requirements that differ between communities can complicate selection process. Federal vs. State prevailing wages for specific aspects of project areas.• Single contractor may not have resources to complete both projects within schedule.• The addition of the watermain work brought in prime contractors that specialized in pipework more than general highway construction.

2ND GENERATION LESSONS LEARNED


STEWART ROAD FUNDING

AMBERLEY VILLAGE FUNDING

Local via TIF funds

Local

3RD GENERATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION


ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESBids are combined into one project Single contractor may not be the lowest

bidder for a communityContractor will be awarded a single project for all work

Unbalanced bidding potential

One contractor streamlines construction administration

Size of project may limit no. of bidders

Non-contracting community not in full controlContracting agency takes on risk of entire contractCombining multiple jurisdiction’s standards into one project

1 Bid Package, 1 ContractProjects: Stewart Road (Silverton), Various Streets

(Amberley Village)

3RD GENERATION



John R. Jurgenson was overall lowest and responsive bidder.Contract closed out October 2015.

3RD GENERATION OUTCOME


3RD GENERATION OUTCOME


448 SURFACE COURSE PRICING2013 $142/cy (300 CY

Qty)2014 $150/cy (500 CY

Qty)2015 $150/cy (1,500 CY

Qty)

3RD GENERATION



3RD GENERATION LESSONS LEARNED

• Funding requirements that are similar allow for quicker, simplified payments to the contractor.• JRJ resources to complete paving work quickly was noted and appreciated by the communities• The project size and scope limited the # of bidders and may have contributed to 2015 pavement pricing to match 2014 pricing. • Difficult to show a substantial cost savings to the public. Cost savings were minor, i.e. advertising, printing, construction administrative streamlining.• If funding comes from variety of sources, centralizing payment process may be best practice.


4TH GENERATION?

ANY QUESTIONS?For FREE access to our Multi-Jurisdictional Pavement Documents, go to:www.kleingers.com/bulk


CASTO Session 49 ODOT TIMS

Documents

Transcript of CASTO Session 49 ODOT TIMS