U.S. Experiences with P3 Projects

Transcription

1 3 U.S. Experiences with P3 Projects Bruce Gerhardt, HDR 3.0 P3 Opportunities for Consulting Engineers P3 Program Management and Advising The Eagle P3 Commuter Rail Project 58 The Eagle P3 Project Scope 59 Project Structure 61 The Engineering Effort 61 Conclusion The I-75 Expansion Project (irox) Naples to Fort Meyers 64 The I-75 irox Project Scope 64 The Project Team and Structure 65 Construction Phase Engineering 66 Conclusion P3 Opportunities for Consulting Engineers For large P3 projects, the cast of players can be large. Although the public entity and the private developer get most of the attention, they both rely on large teams of supporting firms to make the project happen. In addition to the role of engineer of record and the subconsultants and related disciplines involved in project design, many other opportunities are available for design firms large and small. These include: 1. Owner s engineer 2. Contractor s engineer 3. Developer/concessionaire s engineer 4. Lender s engineer 5. Independent CE&I engineer Each project will have a unique set of roles, and structures will vary. But what may be noticeably different for most design professionals is that the client will likely not be the public entity owner of the project that the engineer is used to having as a 55

2 56 Part 1: P3 Opportunities and Experience client. Instead, the client will be a contractor, probably under contract with the developer/concessionaire. The typical client/owner is several steps removed from the engineer, and a different set of expectations will be placed on the engineer. It is also easy to assume P3s only develop projects supported by tolls, such as roads, bridges, and tunnels. But P3s encompass a wide spectrum of facilities, about the only common factor of which is the need to generate income that can be used to finance construction. Examples of P3 projects include: 1. Hospitals 2. Stadiums 3. Prisons 4. Schools 5. Water and wastewater treatment facilities 6. Public/military housing 7. Office buildings 8. Courthouses In any P3 project, there will be a design team responsible for the customary design of the project, typically consisting of an engineer, architect, geotechnical engineer, surveyor, and the usual layers of subconsultants. It will likely be a design-build project in terms of designing the actual facility; what will be different is the client, the financial and time pressures on the deliverables, and the need to work with the construction team to meet the project objectives. Participation usually begins early in the process and involves assisting with the response to the request for qualifications and request for proposals, identifying potential cost- and time-saving strategies, and identifying problems or critical components of the project. Some design work may need to be incorporated into the proposal, and the concessionaire and design-builder may need assistance during negotiations with the project owner. After the awarding of the contract, the contractor s design team must develop the construction documents, usually on some sort of expedited basis. Providing construction assistance to the P3 team replaces the usual construction administration role, so the designer must be careful to understand its client is the contractor, not the project owner. An engineer may be directly hired by the developer or concessionaire to provide consulting services during the project. Rather than developing construction documents, the concessionaire s engineer may assist with the selection of the contractor and its team by reviewing contractor s design work and advising the concessionaire. In this role the engineer may be asked to advise the developer on design-related and scoping issues to be negotiated with the project owner, the terms of the project agreements and specifications, and negotiations with various other participants in the project. Environmental permitting and compliance work is frequently done by engineers and environmental professionals under direct contract with the owner or concessionaire.

3 Chapter 3: P3 Project Experience in the United States 57 Due to the significant role of financing in these arrangements, lenders and others providing financing may retain an engineer to monitor and report on construction activities and payment. They may require independent certifications and testing of various components, thus creating further opportunities for engineering consultants. 3.1 P3 Program Management and Advising The need for public infrastructure regularly outpaces available government funds. As such, the public sector is forced to make difficult decisions about the projects that take priority, which is not an easy task when much of the world s infrastructure is in need of repair or replacement. To help remedy this problem, a government agency can enter into a partnership with a private contractor by way of a P3. Public-private partnership projects enable public-sector agencies (federal, state, or local) to use the services of private-sector entities to share infrastructure development costs and risks. At their best, P3 projects take advantage of the skills and capabilities of both sides, and thus serve the public by delivering high-quality infrastructure at the best value. As an added benefit, P3s provide efficiencies that free up public funds for other core economic and social programs. Many public clients procure assistance to effectively manage any type of P3 program and achieve maximum quality, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. P3 development programs can be created that address critical public needs while incorporating sufficient benefits to attract and secure private-sector participation. The owner s engineering advisor can identify the potential pitfalls, recommend prudent P3 development strategies, and assist with the demands of private party procurement. Many public agencies have found that the most effective way to undertake P3s is with the guidance of such an outside advisor, one able to steer projects toward optimal outcomes. In addition to providing design, planning, and consulting services on P3 projects, consulting engineers can provide the following services: P3 feasibility studies (value for money) Business cases, market assessments, and economic analysis P3 concept planning, testing, and public service comparator Deal structuring and developer solicitations Proposal evaluations and contract negotiations Implementation support and assistance In 2009, Arizona passed House Bill 2369, a P3 law that allowed private participation in the building and operating of highways, giving the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) additional methods to fund the construction and enhancement of roads, transit, and other transportation facilities. As a result of this change, ADOT developed a transparent process for the evaluation and implementation of P3 projects, using these arrangements to better leverage

4 58 Part 1: P3 Opportunities and Experience the state s limited resources. ADOT hired an engineering consulting firm to provide P3 program management services to help it achieve its goals. The consultant developed a two-tier screening mechanism to rank transportation infrastructure projects based on their public benefits and their attractiveness to the private sector. During the first stage, an initial screening of projects is conducted using a ranking model that incorporates ADOT s P3 criteria and preliminary project data. The goal would be to identify projects with the highest potential for attracting private capital investment. In the second stage, detailed project information and expert opinions would be elicited through workshops, in combination with an economic model, to determine public benefits and potential revenue generation for each project selected in stage 1. The projects with the highest potential for private-sector participation, public benefits, and consistency with statewide plans are selected for rigorous cost-benefit and financial analysis. By identifying benefits and potential revenues originating from a project, the economic model can support pursuing a P3 arrangement in which the members of the partnership are able to fulfill their minimum return requirements, whether the entity is public or private. Of course, the greatest demands for engineering services on a P3 project occur in the traditional design and construction phase. Large P3 projects can use dozens of professional firms to deliver the support needed to complete the project. Two projects below highlight the various services a comprehensive engineering consultant can provide on major transportation P3 projects. 3.2 The Eagle P3 Commuter Rail Project Denver s Regional Transportation District (RTD) made effective use of its light rail and bus network to move more than 322,000 riders on an average weekday. Despite that, it recognized a need to improve service from downtown Denver to outlying residential areas and Denver International Airport (DIA). RTD initiated construction activities for the multi-billion-dollar FasTracks program in 2008 with a goal of adding 122 miles of commuter and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, expanded parking at rail and bus stations, and more. A key component Eagle P3 station platform. Courtesy HDR Engineering, Inc. of FasTracks was the $2.1 billion Eagle public-private partnership project, which called for three new commuter lines in and out of Denver s Union Station, a maintenance facility, and 14 new stations. The region s transit system consisted of a 39.4 mile light rail system with 36 stations. Many of the businesses in the downtown area actively supported the system

5 Chapter 3: P3 Project Experience in the United States 59 by funding the expenses for employees using light rail to commute to and from work. RTD s transit fleet had 1,025 buses making more than 10,000 stops to move people in and around Denver and its suburbs. The RTD service area includes 2.8 million people, covers 2,348 square miles, and encompasses more than 40 municipalities. Aggregate daily travel throughout the entire RTD system exceeded 134,000 miles. The Eagle P3 Project Scope Eagle is the largest P3 mass transit project in the United States. The P3 approach allows RTD to transfer risk to the private partners, away from taxpayers, and spread out costs over approximately 30 years. It also makes it possible for RTD to get the finished system up and running much more quickly than in a traditional design-bidbuild scenario. Eagle P3 adds approximately 36 miles to the RTD rail network and vastly improves travel in and out of the downtown area. The three new rail lines terminate at Denver s Union Station, which is immediately adjacent to the South Platte River on the western edge of downtown. The East Corridor covers approximately 13 miles along an existing Union Pacific right-of-way before heading north for the last 10 miles of its 23 mile run to DIA. The Northwest Electrified Segment (NWES) heads due north out of Union Station, passes by the 30-acre Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility, continues 3.5 miles, and terminates in Westminster. NWES serves as the first segment of the planned 41-mile Northwest Rail Corridor. The Gold Line is an 11.2-mile electrified segment that branches off the NWES line and heads west towards Golden, terminating at the Ward Road station to serve Arvada and Wheat Ridge. In addition to providing transit access to neighborhoods in northeast Denver and Aurora, the East Corridor adds a much-needed direct link to the fifth busiest airport in the United States. DIA served more than 52.2 million passengers in 2010, representing a 4.1 percent increase over the previous year. Built in 1995, the airport has grown to contribute more than $22 billion annually to the Colorado economy. Despite its success, DIA is the only facility among the top six U.S. airports that does not have a rail link. One of the challenges DIA faces is its distance from the population center. At about 23 miles from downtown, it is more than three times as far as its predecessor, the now-closed Stapleton Airport. Taxi fare from DIA to downtown Denver is fixed at $55. Denver residents welcome the addition of commuter rail to DIA, which will make the trip both faster and less expensive. As the East Corridor heads northeast from Union Station, it passes though the Coors Field parking lot (Coors Field is the home of the Colorado Rockies baseball team) and a residential section of downtown Denver. As the line heads east it passes through an industrial area with 12 at-grade crossings. Since the commuter rail will have 15 minute headways, the impact to local traffic is being accomodated with the addition of traffic signals at adjacent intersections. Close coordination and communi-

6 60 Part 1: P3 Opportunities and Experience Figure 1. Eagle P3 Routes Source: xxxx cation has built a successful partnership between the design team and local agencies as they work together to address the traffic and other technical issues. The areas north and west of downtown Denver contain significant residential development, with commuters from these areas fueling the downtown workforce. As is the case for nearly half of the East Corridor, the presence of the Union Pacific and BNSF railway lines, which extend north and west, offer opportunities for the NWES and Gold Line routes to capitalize on the flat terrain and gentle contours into Union Station. As a result, the new commuter lines required minimal grading or reconstruction of the existing terrain. The proximity of freight rail operations required coordination among the Denver Transit Partners) project team (described in more detail below, RTD, BNSF, Union Pacific, and the municipalities where new commuter stations would be located. The lead design consultant for Eagle P3, HDR, already had an extensive understanding of freight railroad operational and design requirements from decades of working with Class 1 railroads in the United States. That experience prove to be a valuable asset in working to complete the design for the Eagle P3 project. The design consultant was able to anticipate the need for corridor protection barriers and other safety-related installations along corridors with existing freight lines. Constructing

7 Chapter 3: P3 Project Experience in the United States 61 stations adjacent to freight tracks, and sometimes in proximity to freight rail yards, required further integration of railroad safety standards and detailing. The project team maintained constant communication with the railroads to balance their needs with those of the RTD commuter rail design principles and the concerns of multiple municipalities that had their own interests in historic preservation and aesthetics. The team s architects collaborated with those municipalities to incorporate their aesthetic requirements for stations while ensuring that the designs also met the safety requirements presented by the track team and the freight railroads. Project Structure RTD entered into a concession agreement with Denver Transit Partners (DTP) to design-build-finance-operate-maintain the Eagle P3 project. Denver Transit Partners is a concessionaire comprised of Fluor Enterprises, Laing Investments, and Uberior Investments. Other leading firms involved in the team include Ames Construction, Balfour Beatty Rail, Hyundai-Rotem USA, Alternative Concepts Inc., Fluor/HDR Global Design Consultants, PBS&J, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Interfleet Technology, Systra, Wabtec, and others. Fluor/HDR Global Design Consultants are heading the design team, with HDR Engineering, Inc., providing rail system planning and design. The concessionaire strategy allows an accelerated project delivery schedule with a firm fixed date and penalties for delay, creating incentive to meet the targeted revenue service on all three lines. The Eagle P3 project concession agreement requires DTP to design-build- financeoperate-maintain the East Rail Line, Gold Line, Northwest Electrified Segment (segment 1 of the Northwest Rail Line), and Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility project under a single contract. RTD will retain all assets while shifting much of the risk of designing and building the project to DTP. The concessionaire has also arranged around $450 million of private financing for the project. This allows RTD to spread out large upfront costs over approximately 30 years. In return, RTD will make service payments to DTP based on their performance of the operation and maintenance of the project. The concessionaire will also provide and maintain the rail vehicles for the three commuter rail corridors Assembling a design team for a project of this scope and with a design schedule of just 15 months required expertise, efficiency, and commitment. The engineering team implemented a work-sharing approach that enabled them to successfully complete this large project on an agrressive schedule. By identifying the work requirements early in the proposal stage and targeting the right resources to complete the work, both in management positions as well as the production staff locations, the deisgn team mobilized efficiently to get the job done. The Eagle P3 design team consisted of more than 200 professionals, including more than 40 design staff co-located with the contracting team.

8 62 Part 1: P3 Opportunities and Experience The Engineering Effort The vast engineering work for the Eagle P3 project included: Design of all track, civil, and facilities improvements, including track, drainage, grade crossings, traffic signal systems, freight track relocations, stations, rail systems, and structures, specifically: 14 new stations 2 traction power substations 1 traction power switching station Commuter rail maintenance facility 29 at-grade crossings with protective warning devices and traffic signals Improvements to 34 city streets and state highways impacted by the commuter rail and stations Advanced pre-emption 1 grade-separated crossing 36 bridges East Corridor commuter rail (23.6 miles) Gold Line commuter rail (7.5 miles) Northwest Electrified Segment commuter rail (5.5 miles) Systemwide traction power and overhead contact system (OCS) work Systemwide communications Systemwide train control Relocation of 4 miles of BNSF mainline tracks Modifications to BNSF trailer on flatcar access and parking areas BNSF fuel unloading station Assessing and formulating the various communications and communication-related systems, in conjunction with the client, to meet operational, passenger information, safety, and security criteria. This task considered the project schedule for system implementation as it affects the selection and deployment of advanced and emerging communication technologies, current and planned ADA needs, current and future security requirements, and fare collection and projected advancements in both audio and visual passenger information. Preparing definition reports and operational concepts for the required control center. This task included meetings with the client, developing operational, safety and security philosophies, and preparing ergonomically structured concepts of the physical make-up of the control center. Developing an integrated operating system. The proposed commuter rail service will run in part on shared tracks with the present freight railroad. The design firm developed signal and train control concepts that included this integrated system and the recent Federal Railroad Administration Positive Train Control (PTC) initiative.

9 Chapter 3: P3 Project Experience in the United States 63 At each grade crossing, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Colorado Public Utility Commission (PUC) requirements were incorporated into the design to provide a safe and functional crossing. Each at-grade crossing was included in corridor quiet zones, which provide specific vehicular and pedestrian safety amenities in order to eliminate the sounding of the train horn. As a result, all designs had to meet specific requirements for quiet zones established by the FRA. The team also prepared and submitted all requisite applications to the PUC for approval. Constructed in the early 1960s, Denver Water s Conduit 74 (Sable Pipeline) was a 36-inch prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP). Design services were required for the relocation of two segments of the pipeline necessary to make way for the FasTracks Commuter Rail construction. The relocated pipelines consisted of approximately 6,500 linear feet of 42-inch pipe. The designs allowed for steel or ductile iron pipe in order to encourage more competition during the bidding process. Other design challenges included a crossing of Sand Creek, three bores under existing freight rail tracks, and coordination with adjacent and developing designs for the RTD Commuter Rail and Stapleton redevelopment. The project also included developing design details for connecting the new steel pipe to the existing PCCP material, preparing a geotechnical baseline report, and design coordination with Denver Water engineering staff designing adjacent pipelines. Corrosion control design for the overall commuter rail system, including coordination with RTD and nearby utilities regarding the potential for stray currents, was also provided. The Eagle P3 project called for building 36 bridges along the three track lines that total about 14,000 lineal feet (4.3km) of aerial structure, including two long sections: The I-70 flyover is about 4,100 feet (1.3 km) long and has 30 spans with a mixture of curved steel girders and pre-stressed concrete bulb tees. Pena Bridge is 1,850 feet (0.6 km) long and has 16 spans of pre-stressed concrete bulb tees. Optimal prestressed concrete superstructures using concrete bulb tee girders or concrete box girders were chosen for most of the structures where span lengths and alignments would allow. The use of structural steel girders is limited to curved sections of the alignment. The structure layout reduced the construction of substructures by maximizing span lengths of the superstructure elements in conjunction with meeting vertical clearance requirements of the features being crossed. The design of all bridges in the project focused on efficiency and consistency of structural elements. Consistency in fabrication resulted from the use and re-use of casting beds and the familiarity of casting operations at precasting plants. During construction, consistent operations and equipment were required at each bridge site. In areas where vertical clearances of features being crossed allowed, the track sections used ballasted track with pre-stressed concrete box girders. The boxes were modified to provide integral ballast curbs that were poured with the structural box-

10 64 Part 1: P3 Opportunities and Experience es. This allowed for placement of the ballast immediately after waterproofing of the box sections. In areas where vertical clearance restrictions did not allow for the required ballast depth, the bridge superstructures used bulb tee girders with castin-place concrete deck surfaces and cast-in-place concrete plinth blocks. The wide flanges of the bulb tee girders minimize the deck forms needed and speed construction operations. Conclusion The Eagle P3 project was awarded to DTP in June A notice to proceed for Phase 1 was issued in August 2010, with the majority of the design completed in December Construction is currently underway, beginning with relocation of utilities along the East Corridor that will be impacted by the grade crossings, Union Pacific relocation, and commuter rail tracks. Relocation of the Union Pacific tracks along the East Corridor began in fall 2011, and construction on the commuter rail line along the East Corridor began in summer Revenue service for all lines is planned to start in 2016, beginning with the East Corridor. Passengers will be able to travel from Union Station and arrive at DIA in 35 minutes. The current average drive time between these two locations is about 55 minutes. Service will be available every 15 minutes between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and at 30-minute intervals at other times. An average of 43,000 riders per weekday is expected by opening day. Completion and operation of the East Corridor, commuter rail maintenance facility and a portion of the NWES system is expected in late 2016 or early The remaining components of the project will be fully designed, and construction will be initiated, when funding becomes available. 3.3 The I-75 Expansion Project (irox) Naples to Fort Meyers The I-75 irox Project Scope In 2008, when the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) selected ACCI/ API, a joint venture, as the design-build-finance contractor for the $430.5 million irox project, it marked the first time FDOT had entered into a P3. With the funding in place and the design-build team on board, FDOT was set to launch the largest single roadway project in its history, which included widening 30 miles of I-75 from four lanes to six from Golden Gate Parkway in Collier County to Colonial Boulevard in Lee County, reconstructing 20 bridges, building 4 new bridges, creating 23 new storm water lakes, and installing 6 noise barriers. The project exceeded expectations, in part due to innovative financing. Although the project did not include an operational concession that funded a portion of the project and thus is categorized as a design-build-finance project, ACCI/API fi-

11 Chapter 3: P3 Project Experience in the United States 65 nanced the project with a commitment from FDOT to be fully reimbursed within 5 years of the project s beginning. The joint venture began receiving payments from FDOT in October 2007, at first on a monthly basis and then on a quarterly basis after August 2008, when the initial funding ran out. Approximately $380 million was paid out during the project s construction period and $78 million after completion. The last payment to the contractor occurred in October The design-build approach was instrumental in making the aggressive design and construction schedule possible and reducing the delivery period even further. The six lanes were opened at the end of 2009, rather than the end of 2015, and the public has its project six years earlier than was projected had the project been completed using traditional procurement methods. The typical design-bid-build process is disjointed and requires three independent boundaries: Designers are required by ethics to maintain their independence from builders. Owners must procure designers and builders separately, and 100 percent plans are required, which further separates and lengthens the process. Builders are forced to select subcontractors, equipment, and materials based on the lowest price. As a design-build project, irox successfully eliminated these boundaries. Section of I-75 Expansion Project (irox). Copyright Keith Philpott/HDR The Project Team and Structure Project oversight was handled by Metric Engineering via a construction engineering inspection (CEI) contract; two builders, Anderson Columbia Company, Inc., and Ajax Paving Industries of Florida LLC, formed ACCI/API to serve as the construction manager for irox, and HDR provided the design engineering and construction phase services. The goal was for the owner (FDOT, represented by Metric), the builders, and the designers to work together with a single responsibility and objective. The result was a quality project with savings in time, cost, and administration, as well as improved sharing of knowledge and better risk management. To speed design, permitting, and construction, the project was divided into five sections. That allowed certain phases to start earlier and provided valuable lessons and information to be used in later sections. Numerous HDR offices were involved in the project in a work-sharing approach. Subcontractors were also involved early by the Anderson/Ajax team, allowing them input on design and construction planning. Design reviews were able to include constructability concerns, a key component of reducing construction time and cost. In a partnering effort, the South Florida Water

12 66 Part 1: P3 Opportunities and Experience Management District agreed to review environmental permitting efforts for each section as opposed to reviewing the entire project as one unit, making the permitting quicker and less susceptible to delay. Construction began on the project in October 2007, while design efforts were still in progress, creating a fast-track design and construction environment. Traffic was routed to the outside shoulders, allowing a construction zone to be established in the inside lanes. At the same time, early foundation work for the bridges was performed while later stages of construction, like the sub- and superstructure, were still being finalized. Existing lanes were milled and re-surfaced, while two additional lanes were added to the outside of those existing lanes. Construction Phase Engineering On the irox project, emphasis was placed on construction phase services as a way to make changes more quickly, which increased the likelihood of qualifying for a $15 million early completion bonus. The construction manager was interested in attaining the bonus by moving the schedule up 150 days without incurring extended overtime and having to schedule additional crews and equipment. To accomplish this, the design engineering team was used as on-site construction engineers. The idea was to advance decisions, make changes to the design, and use a close team of construction managers and designers on-site who could expedite the necessary changes to continue construction non-stop. On-site engineers could listen to suggestions, learn the construction methods, and incorporate ideas into the design when possible. Four HDR engineers one each from roadway, drainage, structures, and environmental brought experience to the project office in Fort Myers, where they became integrated with the joint venture. Creating the construction phase services team generated additional confidence for the contractors. The engineers provided independent verification of the plans and watched over requests for information (RFIs), design concerns, and construction. The co-location approach made it easier to develop relationships between the joint venture, the construction phase services team, and the specialty subcontractors. The co-located team shared office space, visited the construction sites together, and socialized away from the office. It took the right personalities and the right skill level to make the approach work. Beyond the personal aspects of co-location, having the engineers on site allowed quick decisions that sometimes saved weeks in construction delays. For example, a conflict over an existing junction box for a storm water pond normally would have required one to two days to write up an RFI, up to three weeks to get changes back from the engineer, and another two weeks to revise the plan. But with the drainage engineer on site, a new plan was developed in three days, verified by the designer the next day, and ready to implement within a week of the issue being discovered. A process that might have taken five weeks to resolve was reduced to five days. With

13 Chapter 3: P3 Project Experience in the United States storm water ponds included in the project, significant delays on one could produce a domino effect that would threaten the overall project schedule. There were more than 320 official issues logged, and many of them had success stories similar to the pond issue mentioned above. For example, a noise wall at Southern Pines, in Lee County, presented some unexpected utility conflicts because of its foundation. But the structures engineer was on site right away to redesign foundations and avoid any major utility conflicts. With the contractor on site, the whole problem was addressed so quickly that it avoided weeks of possible delay. Typically, the engineer works in isolation from the builder, focusing solely on production of plans and specifications that conform to the code and design criteria. The design process is iterative and generates several review and response periods. Finished design documents are signed and sealed, assembled into design packages, and let to construction. During construction, the engineer s responsibility usually is limited to RFI responses and shop drawing reviews. On the irox project, the construction phase services approach placed engineers in the project office for the duration of the construction period. From there, they were able to observe with greater detail what was occurring in the field and preemptively identify potential problems. This field information is seldom available to the engineer, but the arrangement provided a number of ways to gather it, such as: Direct field observation. Driving the corridor brought to light some issues that needed attention. For example, one trip revealed exit ramp tapers that were too sharp. Field observation made it possible to address this safety issue with the contractor immediately. Meetings. With several agencies, contractors, and subcontractors involved in a project of this scale, meetings were a commonplace occurrence. Attending these meetings made the on-site engineers acutely aware of the issues from many standpoints. Having the engineers on hand also provided assurance to the stakeholders, who just wanted to know that everything was being done per the standards. Surveys. During construction, staking surveys were done for the layout of the project. By interacting in the field, both the surveyors and the engineers engaged in an exchange of information that does not exist on more traditional projects. Once the construction engineers were aware of a potential issue, the information was entered into a customized database that could be shared company-wide. This allowed engineers in other locations who had worked on the original design to participate in brainstorming sessions and make plan revisions. When situations presented multiple alternatives or needed contractor input, ACCI/API or the appropriate subcontractors were consulted as well. Ultimately, the joint venture was involved in every proposed change that was related to schedule or cost.

14 68 Part 1: P3 Opportunities and Experience Conclusion The irox project used 400,000 tons of asphalt pavement, 750,000 tons of reinforcing steel, and 1 million tons of limestone rock. As many as 500 construction crews were on site simultaneously. In every way, irox was a big project, and that included the early completion bonus. The ACCI/API joint venture earned a $15 million bonus for finishing the project by July 2010, seven months ahead of the owner s target finish date. The early completion date was not only met, it was beat by four months, and finished more than 10 months ahead of the owner s scheduled delivery date.