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

Arizona’s New Design-Build Law and Experience

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Design-Build History

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

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

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

Method/Prescriptive Specs

Performance Specs

Design-Build is a Combination of Both

Design-Build is a Combination of Both

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

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

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.

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

Design-Build Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Team Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

Utility Relationships

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

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

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

Selection of Best Value Offer for Design-Build

Projects

Selection Process — Two Step

Request for Qualifications — Team

Request for Proposal — Technical

Request for Qualifications — Team

Request for Proposal — Technical

Best Value Proposal

Cost

Technical Score

Cost

Technical Score

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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