2009 Louisiana Transportation Conference February 9, 2009 Session 9. LA DOTD s Design-Build Procurement For the I-12 Widening Project

Transcription

1 2009 Louisiana Transportation Conference February 9, 2009 Session 9 LA DOTD s Design-Build Procurement For the I-12 Widening Project

2 Jeff Burst, P.E. Project Management Administrator Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

3 DB Perspective DB is a different way of doing business Built on the tenets of teamwork, trust, and ownership The team is DOTD and the Design-Builder working together for the success of the Project The relationship is not arms length or adversarial Quality is embodied in the process

4 DB Perspective DB is a different way of doing business continued Flexibility and opportunity for innovation and creativity are encouraged Uses partnering Empowers decision-making at the lowest levels of the team

5 I-12 Widening Design-Build

6 O'Neal Lane Interchange

7 Project Corridor Limits

8 Project Scope Design-Build to Budget - $100,000,000 Widen I-12 to 6 lanes Beginning at O Neal Lane Interchange Eastward to the maximum extent allowable within the stated budget All Designs conforming to AASHTO and DOTD Standards

9 Major Project Elements Widening the mainline of Interstate 12 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes. Widening to the median side of the existing pavement Required bridge structure modifications/replacements.

10 Amite River Bridge Structure 2 new parallel bridge structures to replace the existing 4 bridge structures. Approx. 2,615 feet of main line bridge structure. Degrading existing embankment plug between the Main and Relief structures. The proposed finished bridge grade raised a few feet and vertically tie into the existing roadway elevation at the approaches.

11 Overpass Bridge Structures O Neal lane Interchange (LA 3245): Interior widening of Interchange overpass structure. 4-H Road Overpass (LA 1032): Providing interior widening of the overpass structure. Range Ave. Interchange (LA 3002): Providing interior widening of the Interchange overpass structure

12

13 DB Approach Two-Phase Procurement Request for Qualifications with Statement of Qualifications (RFQ/SOQ); and Scope of Services Package with Technical and Price Proposals

14 Procurement Timeline Notice of Intent April 30, 2008 Letters of Interest June 6, 2008 Request for Statements of June 18, 2008 Qualification Shortlist Announced August 22, 2008 Scope of Services Package September 12, 2008 One-on-One Meetings Sept. & Oct. 2008

15 Procurement Timeline Proposal Due Date November 10, 2008 Price Proposal Opening December 8, 2008 Contract Award December 15, 2008 Contract Execution/NTP December 30, 2008

16 DB Approach Phase 1 RFQ/SOQ Standing Consultant Evaluation Committee Resulted in the Short-List of the most highly rated Proposers Austin Bridge & Road Gilchrist Construction Company James Construction Company Scott Bridge Company & Barber Brothers JV TEAM 12

17 RFQ Evaluation Factors (Pass/Fail) Legal (Pass/Fail) Financial Organization and Key Managers Experience Past Performance Backlog/Capacity Project Understanding

18 RFQ Project Goals 1. NTP by the end of Compliance with all DOTD and AASHTO standards and specifications. 3. Quality design and construction producing a durable product. 4. Minimize life cycle costs. 5. Maximize lane openings and minimize queuing.

19 RFQ Project Goals 6. No major injury or loss of life. 7. Positive public perception of project. 8. Extend 6 lane widening:o Neal Lane as far East as funding/innovation will allow. 9. No claims. 10.Complete by the end of 2011.

20 DB Approach Phase 2 Scope of Services Package/Proposals Technical Review Committees Successful Proposer will be the lowest adjusted score considering the following: Overall Technical Score; Price; and Time/value.

21 I-12 DB Proposal Evaluation Criteria Scope of Services Package Evaluation Factors: (Pass/Fail) Legal (Pass/Fail) Financial Technical Solutions Key Personnel and Experience Management Approach Technical evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance

22 Technical Solutions Length of I-12 reconstruction and functional benefit: (Significantly most important) Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Bridge Concepts Roadway, Pavement Design, and Hydraulics (Equal importance) Miscellaneous Project Elements (Less important)

23 Key Personnel and Experience Evaluation of the Design-Builder s staff quality committed to the project.

24 Management Approach Project Management Plan Project Controls Organization Sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance

25 I-12 Design-Build Procurement The Proposal Evaluation Process Evaluation Sub Committee Teams provide evaluation recommendations Clarifications if needed Adjectival Ratings Main Technical Review Committee Decides Overall Adjectival Rating and Score

26 I-12 Design-Build Procurement The Evaluation Process: All Members rate all factors Consensus of all members for Final Factor and Overall Ratings is required. Conversion Table to Point Scores from Final Adjectival Ratings.

27 The Evaluation Philosophy A+ G G G- A A-

28 Adjectival Ratings EXCEPTIONAL ~ The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial to the LA DOTD. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality with very little or no risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are essentially no Weaknesses. GOOD ~ The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality with little risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor. ACCEPTABLE ~ The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates an acceptable level of quality. The Technical Proposal demonstrates a reasonable probability of success. Weaknesses are minor and can be readily corrected. UNACCEPTABLE ~ The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that indicates significant Weaknesses/Deficiencies and/or unacceptable quality. The Technical Proposal fails to meet the stated criteria and/or lacks essential information and is conflicting and/or unproductive. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; Weaknesses/Deficiencies are so major and/or extensive that a major revision to the Technical Proposal would be necessary. In assigning ratings the LA DOTD may assign + or - (such as, exceptional -, good +, and acceptable + ) to the ratings to better differentiate within a rating in order to more clearly differentiate between the Proposers.

29 Legal & Financial Evaluation Evaluation Factor Gilchrist James Legal Scott Bridge and Barber Brothers (Pass/Fail) Pass Pass Pass Financial (Pass/Fail) Pass Pass Pass

30 Technical Evaluation Ratings Technical Evaluation Factors Technical Solutions Key Personnel & Experience Management Approach Gilchrist James Scott Bridge and Barber Brothers A+ G- A- G- G- G+ G- A+ A+ Overall Rating A+ G- A-

31 Technical Scoring System Overall Proposal Technical Rating Final Total Technical Score Exceptional + 1,750 Exceptional 1,350 Exceptional - 1,150 Good + 1,050 Good 1,000 Good Acceptable Acceptable 825 Acceptable - 625

32 Selected Design-Build Team Adjusted Score = $100 Million + ($10,000/day)(# of days) Technical Score Adjusted Score = $100 Million + ($10,000/day)(1057days) 975 = 113,405

33 Selected Design-Build Team

34

35 Project Phasing

36 Project Phasing

37 Project Schedule

38 Project Schedule

39 Possible Future DB Procurement Improvements More face to face meetings with Proposers presentations and discussions. Operations, Maintenance, and Longterm Warranties Proposal Preparation Time extend where possible

40 Possible Future DB Procurement Improvements SOQ only as needed or combined with NOI s Short-list Number Project-by-Project Trend LA DB Procurements toward the FHWA DB Regulations

41 Questions?