Multi-level Risk Management for the Port of Miami...

Multi-level Risk Management for

the Port of Miami Tunnel Project

Eldon Abbott

WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff -- Retired

Reliance Engineers, LLC

Project Team

Florida Department of Transportaion

Port of Miami

City of Miami

Miami Dade County

Nosssman, LLP – Legal Advisors

Jeffery A. Parker & Associates, Inc. –

Financial Advisors

PB Team as Owner’s Rep

Project Team

Miami Access Tunnel – Concessionaire,

LLC

Meridiam Infrastructure - Majority Equity

Partner

Bouygues Travaux Publics – Minority Equity

Partner

Contractor – Bouygues Civil Works Florida

Port of Miami

Port of Miami Operations

The 12th largest national cargo port & top containerized seaport in Florida

3.5 million cruise passengers in 2004

9.2 million tons of cargo shipped in 2004

$17 billion in economic output

Cargo traffic and cruise traffic divided on the Port

PORT ACCESS: EXISTING TRUCK ROUTES

THROUGH DOWNTOWN MIAMI

6

Port growth is

constrained

by current

access

Trucks

currently

travel through

NE 1st and

2nd Avenues,

and

5th and 6th

Streets

Port

of

Miami

PB’s Project Re-evaluation

Scope

MacArthur Causeway Bridge widening

Tunnel and underground work – Bored Tunnel or Immersed Tube Tunnel?

Road work on Watson Island

Road work on Dodge Island

Watson Island development

Geotechnical

Tunnel Alignment

MacArthur Causeway Bridge

Widening

Tunnel & Underground Work

Typical Section

Tunnel & Underground Work

Bored Tunnel Profile

Surface Roads

Watson Island

Surface RoadsDodge Island Connection to New Port Road Network

Bored Tunnel Engineering

IssuesGeotechnical conditions

Shallow cover

Potential for high water inflows

Deep cut and cover

Buoyancy

Material disposal

Limited construction work area

Permitting

Immersed Tube Tunnel -

Watson Island

EXTENDED

ITT

EXTENDED

ITT

Immersed Tube Tunnel - Port of

Miami

EXTENDED

ITT

EXTENDED

ITT

Immersed Tube Tunnel

Profile

ITT

ITT Typical Section

Immersed Tube Tunnel – Channel Dredging

Issues – Interference with Port Operations

Wharf Crossing at Port: C&C

Section

Geotechnical Basics – Conceptual

Design: Tunnel Boring Locations

Geotechnical Conditions – Jack-Up Barge Drilling

in Channel

Geotechnical Basics

Photo of Core Recovered in Channel

Geotechnical Basics

Miami & Ft. Thompson Limestone

Primary Geologic Strata

Geotechnical Basics -

Video Images Down Borehole

Watson Island Developments

PARROT

JUNGLE

FUTURE

PARKPARKING

CHILDREN’S

MUSEUM

MIAMI

ISLAND

GARDENS

PROPOSED

Bored Tunnel

Advantages

No Dredging thus Reduced Environmental Impact

EPB TBM State of the Art for Subaquatic Conditions

Lower Impact on Port Operations

Tunnels can be Extended to Reduce Amount of C&C

Sections

Constraints

Increased Risk from Unforeseen Ground Conditions

Still has Potential High-Water Inflow Quantities

Buoyancy Issues

Muck Disposal

Immersed Tube Tunnel

Advantages

Less Risk Construction Method

Use Conventional Construction Equipment

Constraints

Environmental Impacts/Permits

Major Interruptions to Port Operations

Requires Dredging/Blasting

Spoils Disposal

Requires Extensive Deep Cut-and-Cover Sections

Groundwater Control is Difficult & Expensive

TUNNEL PERMITTING & Regulatory Issues

Potential Permits Required

FDEP (or SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)

• surface water encroachments

• sovereign submerged lands lease or other consent of

use

• stormwater treatment (and dewatering plan approval if

dewatering is contemplated)

Miami-Dade DERM

• Class I Marine Construction Permit

• Class II Stormwater Discharge

USACE Individual Permit

• surface water encroachments

• potential offshore disposal of excavated material.

FDEP Construction Permit

• erosion/sedimentation control

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Permit

• bridge construction or modification

Risk Assessment during

Preliminary Engineering

FDOT Goal:

Determine and quantify in $ value the risk associated with the bored tunnels

Objective:

Develop a risk sharing mechanism with potential Concessionaires to keep the bids “affordable”

INDUSTRY FORUM

Port of Miami Tunnel

December 5, 2005

Issues for Discussion: Engineering

/ Geotechnical

To what level of completeness should engineering documents be prepared before bidding? Does this depend on the procurement model (DBOM or concession models)?

What will happen to the material from the dredging and/or boring operations?

How much geotechnical information is enough?

What additional type(s) of geotechnical testing and analysis is required at this time?

Issues for Discussion:

Construction MethodBecause of potential environmental

impacts and impacts to Port operation, recent efforts have focused on the bored tunnel option.

Does the immersed tube tunnel make more sense as the construction method?

Would you be willing to bid on this option as an alternate?

Issues for Discussion:

Construction Risk

Is the level of risk associated with the

bored tunnel manageable?

What methods and actions should be

taken to mitigate this risk?

What risk-sharing concepts should be

considered for this project?

Why Public-Private Approach?

Project complexity

Tunnel construction and operation are

atypical for FDOT

Need for private sector innovation and

efficiencies

Share risks with experienced partners

Significant but finite local / state funding

available for project

Financial leveraging power of PPP’s

-37- Draft 4 – Feb 28, 2006

Industry Input

Comments received from 9 contractors /

engineers

Reactions to options for financial

structuring of geotechnical risk sharing

Reactions to proposed owner

geotechnical testing program

Suggestions based upon successful

experiences

A Multi-Level Strategy

Conduct additional Geotechnical Studies

Industry Input to these studies

Geotechnical Data + Baseline Report

Performance Specifications

Insurable Risks

Detailed Unit Costs

Owner’s Contingency Reserve

Consideration of Time

Force Majeure - Named Storms

Risk Assessment Workshops

FDOT and the Owner’s Rep Team conducted

several Risk Assessment workshops at

strategic points during the RFP preparation

stage.

43 Significant risks were identified and

quantified through these workshops

These 43 risks, if they all occurred, would have

potential cost impact between $95 and $185

Million

Tunnel Buoyancy Issue

Showing Ballast in

Invert used to

Counteract Buoyancy

Ballast

Counteract Buoyancy

Risks identified for Bored Tunnel

Potential for uncontrolled groundwater inflow into tunnel during excavation

Controlling discharge of excavated material

Prevention of “Frac-out” into Biscayne Bay waters above tunnel alignment.

Large diameter TBM / Heavy Cutterhead / Low Bearing Capacity Soil Layers / Tight Construction Tolerances.

Potential for Presence of large (?) voids.

Port of Miami Tunnel Risk

Assessment

Extract from the risk register

Port of Miami TunnelRisk Analysis set the stage for risk sharing

with DBOM Concessionaire

Extract

www.portofmiamitunnel.com

Tunneling Profile Section & Cross Passages

• Tunnels are approximately 4200 ft. long

• +40 ft. under the bottom of Government Cut &

approximately 120 ft. below the surface at deepest

point

• 5% Grade

• 5 cross passages

Major Construction Period Risks

Design – performance specifications (outcome rather

than input based)

Permitting led by with FDOT support

Differing site conditions (geology, existing bridge

foundations)

Changed conditions measured against Geotechnical

Baseline Report, compliance with “Subsurface

Methods Plan” submitted as part of proposal

Contingency fund with $10M “deductible”, $150M

“FDOT tranch” and $20M “concessionaire tranche

Other Major Construction Period

Risks

Other key risks also rely on baseline reports:

Hazardous materials

management/remediation

Utilities and underground piles

Force Majeure strictly defined, with named

windstorm and terrorism being self-insured by

FDOT

FDOT Risk Sharing

PhilosophyExtract from the Project Information Memorandum

“A key driver in FDOT’s decision to procure the tunnel using a concession approach is the opportunity to access private expertise in managing, mitigating and valuing geotechnical risk. Therefore significant geotechnical risk will be transferred to the private sector”

“Concessionaire will be responsible for overruns due to Baseline Geotechnical Conditions” given in the GBR.

And

“FDOT will share substantial amounts of risk for overruns due to changed geotechnical conditions”

FDOT Changed Condition Risk

Allocation

Uninsured Losses (x) Risk Allocation

x < $10 million 100% Concessionaire

$10 m < x < $160 m 100 % FDOT

$160 m < x < $180 m 100 % Concessionaire

X > $180 m

Either Party has the right to

Terminate Contract or

negotiate mutually

acceptable agreement for

cost sharing.

Risk Category

Risk Allocation

FDOTConcessionair

eShared

Political X

Financial X

Traffic & Revenue X

Right-of-Way X

Permits/Government Approvals X

Utilities XProcurement XConstruction XOperations & Maintenance XHand-Back XForce Majeure XChange in Law XContamination XGeotechnical X

SUMMARY RISK ALLOCATIONS

-50- Draft 4 – Feb 28, 2006

Insurable Risks

FDOT retaining insurance advisors

Insurable risks to be identified in draft

RFP

List to be refined with Short-listed firms

Insured events will not be compensated

from Geotechnical Contingency Reserve

Premiums are Concessionaire’s

responsibility

Lessons Learned

Risk allocation – clearly defined so that D/B teams can price their risk.

Permits must be filed and preliminary Order of Conditions obtained for pricing. Permitting Agencies imposed strict conditions on

protection of Manatees and clear waters of Biscayne Bay

Contamination must be identified and “baselined” for pricing.

Utility work & responsible parties for performing work must be identified for pricing

Lessons Learned

All ROW must be secured if innovation is the

goal from proposers

Third party issues & mitigation measures

should be given in the documents

Staging areas & dates available in

documents

All geotechnical data for design &

construction should be obtained in advance

especially with a shortened bid period.


TUNNEL BORING MACHINE EB & WB

BREAK-IN, BREAKOUT & TUNNEL

Mining of the Eastbound Tunnel began on November 11, 2011 and was

completed on July 31, 2012 (751 Rings & 4,186 LF)

Mining of the Westbound Mining began October 29, 2012 and was completed

on May 6, 2013 (745 Rings & 4,152 LF)

• 2 bored tunnels each 4,200 ft. long

• Tunnel bore 42 ft. with 37ft. ID

• 8 piece rings using 5.6ft wide by 24 in. thick segments

• 5% maximum grade and a tight horizontal curve Rmin= 1,000 ft.

• Low ground cover : from ABOVE grade to 0.5 to 1.5 Tunnel Diameters

• Tunnel Separation: 1/3 to 1 ¼ Tunnel Dia. (edge to edge)


TUNNEL BORES: THE TASK

Cutterhead

Diameter

42.3 feet

361 foot

long trailing

gear

Total TBM

Length

428.5 feet

POMT Tunnel Boring Machine

Cutter Soil Mixing


Soil Mix walls

And soil

improvement

EXCAVATION OF LAUNCH SHAFT


Tension Tie downs

Challenging

Geologic Conditions

6 foot diameter test boring!

Seismic cone penetrometer testing

Seismic Acquisition

Three basic elements:

1) Source: sea = airgun (compressed air)

2) Receiver: sea = hydrophones

3) Geometric layout that establishes

the relationship between source &

receiver

24-channel

hydrophone

streamer

compressed air source,

two 10 cu-inch Bolt airguns

Walker Marine

Geophysical

survey vessel

Slide credit, Dr. Donald F. McNeill, Ph.D., PG

Geologic Profile

ForUpper Fort Thompson Formation

Anastasia Formation

Key Largo Formation (Lower FTF)

Tamiami Formation

Miami Formation

110 ft +/-

Looking East at Government Cut

FORMATION GROUTING IN THE KEY

LARGO FORMATION

•Formation Grouting

along the tunnel

alignment during 2012

•Grouting ran 24 hrs

during non-cruise days

(3 or 4 days per week)

A total of ~64,000 cy of

grout was placed, ~27%

of the formation volume.

Grouting for unplanned

interventions, muck

conditioning, and tail

void grout confinement.

Inside Diameter 37 ft

Bored Tunnel Length 4,206 LF


CROSS PASSAGES – GROUND FREEZING PROCESS

• 44 freezing pipes were installed

• Estimated freeze time once brine installed at -22◦F was 40 days.

• A small cooling unit was installed in the second tunnel to cool the

lining segments and ensure efficient “closing” of ice ring.

• Steel support frame was installed to prevent movements of the

first tunnel due to ice pressures.

• Steel door was installed as “fail safe” to be closed in case of an

emergency during excavation.

Port of Miami Tunnel

Estimated project construction cost -

$607 million

Final Construction cost - $667 million

Most of the increase ($50 Million) was

due to additional grouting performed

under Government Cut shipping channel

Open for Traffic

Aug 3, 2014

Multi-level Risk Management for the Port of Miami...

Documents

Transcript of Multi-level Risk Management for the Port of Miami...