1 / 64

Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration

d. D ISTRICT D EPARTMENT O F T RANSPORTATION. Virginia Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Adventures in Building Another Washington Monument Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. Cost and Schedule Management.

meghana-naidu
Download Presentation

Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. d. DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Virginia Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Adventures in Building Another Washington Monument Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Cost and Schedule Management Shirlene Cleveland, PE Deputy Director, Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration District of Columbia Department of Transportation

  2. Financial Overview

  3. Project Overview: Financial • Total Project Funds = $2.524 Billion “Special” Federal Funds $1,544 Million Maryland* $329 Million Virginia* $635 Million District of Columbia $16 Million * - From various state and/or regular federal funding sources

  4. Financial Plan History On Time, On Budget • Initial Financial Plan Approved in Sept. 2001 • Total Project Budget = $2.442 Billion • 2002 Update Approved in March 2003 • Total Project Budget = $2.564 Billion • 2003 Update Approved in March 2004 • Total Project Budget = $2.427 Billion • 2004 Update Approved in February 2005 • Total Project Budget = $2.449 Billion • 2005 Update Approved in April 2006 • Total Project Budget = $2.444 Billion • 2006 Update Approved in March 2007 • Total Project Budget = $2.476 Billion • 2007 Update Approved in March 2008 • Total Project Budget = $2.524 Billion • Update is on www.wilsonbridge.com • Expenditures through December 2007 = $1,873 Million

  5. Project Budget by Element

  6. Contract Bid Performance • 36 Projects Advertised and Bid to Date in MD & VA • $1.494 Billion in Contracts Awarded to Date • $119 Million under budget • Overall, Bids are 7.4% Below Budget As of April 2008

  7. Developing the Project Scope/Budget

  8. Developing the Project Scope

  9. Developing the Project BudgetCost per Mile Estimates • MSHA keeps databases of costs incurred over the years for different types of work • Initial budgets developed using cost/mile for roadway work and cost/SF for bridge work, depending on type of work • Added extra for intense MOT required • 40% contingency for all cost/mile estimates • Additional 15-30% added for potential utility impacts • Early right-of-way costs also included

  10. Developing the Project BudgetSignature Bridge Estimates • Since signature bridges are not often built in Maryland, looked for cost estimates for similar type structures around the country • Added on additional costs for unique features of the project (i.e. bascule drawspan) • Added on heavy contingencies to (hopefully!) cover any unknowns

  11. Developing the Project BudgetMajor Quantities Estimate • As the Project progressed into Preliminary Engineering stage, major quantities estimates were prepared • Quantities and costs for major categories of Grading, Structures, Paving, Shoulders, Major Landscaping and Major Traffic and Utility Items were estimated • Remaining category items’ (MOT & Preliminary Items, Drainage, Other Landscaping and Other Traffic and Utility Items) costs estimated as a percentage of the major categories • Right-of-way and utility estimates also updated • Contingency of 15-25% added to estimate, depending on apparent risk for particular area of work

  12. Developing the Project BudgetRefining the Estimates • Unified Preliminary Investigation (PI) or 30% Plans prepared for the main bridge and each interchange to facilitate better cost estimating • Work broken into contracts based on construction and MOT needs • The design of work that was needed first was advanced first, while the rest of the work remained at the PI stage • Detailed cost estimates prepared as design advanced beyond the PI stage • Contingencies at Semi-Final or 65% Plans was 15% and 5% for Final Review or 90% Plans

  13. Developing the Project BudgetThe Financial Plan • The FHWA requires Financial Plans for all megaprojects (>$1 billion), updated yearly • FP shows expenditures, updated project schedule, projected costs yet to be incurred (with appropriate inflation factors), how projected costs were estimated, how costs will be covered, and changes in the total cost of the Project • FP encourages cost accountability • Most contracts could not be advertised for construction until a Financial Plan was adopted (Dredging and Foundations contracts were exempted in the federal bill that provided their funding)

  14. Developing the Project BudgetConstruction Contingencies 24.5% contingency added to each construction contract: • 4% to pay for GEC • 10% for construction changes or claims • 10% for construction contract management • 0.5% for miscellaneous

  15. Staying “On Time, On Budget”

  16. Bidding & Award Schedule:Bridge & Maryland Approach 200 BR-3A $186.0M 11.7.2002 BR-3C $191.2M 5.1.2003 180 160 BR-2 $125.4M 3.22.2001 140 MA-4 $93.2M 2.17.2005 BR-3B $115.5M 2.13.2003 120 Millions of Construction Dollars 100 80 MA-2&3 $45.4M 10.31.2002 MB-4 $59.5M 11.10.2005 MA-1 $42.4M 9.20.2001 60 BR-1 $14.5M 9.14.2000 40 MB-1&2 $18.7M 12.18.2003 MB-3 $40.8M 3.31.2005 MA-1A $9.4M 6.7.2001 20 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Date Contract Awarded

  17. Bridge Contract BR-2Foundations Designer: PTG (Parsons) Advertised: November 20, 2000 148 Plan sheets / 510 IFB pages # Addenda: 10 # Questions: 182 Bids Opened: March 22, 2001 Foundation Locations (V7 thru M10)

  18. Bridge Contract BR-2 Approximate Quantities 114,100 Linear Feet 14,100 Linear Feet 24 4 27,000 Cubic Yards 11,300 Cubic Yards 55,700 Cubic Yards 19,500 Cubic Yards • 628 Round Steel Piles (4’ – 6’ Diameter) • 350 Square Concrete Piles (24” x 24”) • Regular Cofferdams • Large Cofferdam Boxes • Tremie Concrete • Pile Concrete • Footing Concrete • Substructure Concrete Engineer’s Estimate $132,297,880 +41.6% $200,000,000 $175,000,000 +1.6% +1.4% -2.9% $150,000,000 -5.2% $125,000,000 $100,000,000 Bid Price $187,347,360 $75,000,000 $134,122,525 $125,396,511 $128,480,712 $134,454,905 $50,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 Tidewater/Kiewit/Clark Cashman McLean/Cianbro Weeks/Lane/Interbeton ModernContinental Contractor

  19. Contract BR-2 Bridge Foundations Hunting Tower 100 Feet A Total of 640 Steel Pipe Piles: Largest Steel Pile 225 Feet Long – 72” in Diameter @ 48” Dia. 38,200 LF @ 54” Dia. 21,060 LF @ 66” Dia. 25,420 LF @ 72” Dia. 29,470 LF = 22 Miles

  20. Bridge Contract BR-2

  21. I-295 Contract MA-1Ramps E, F, E-1 Designer: JMT / WRA Joint Venture Advertised: June 25, 2001 597 Plan sheets / 767 IFB pages # Addenda: 6 # Questions: 15 Bids Opened: September 20, 2001 Ramps E & F Ramp E-1

  22. I-295 Contract MA-1 Approximate Quantities 62,250 tons 343,000 Cubic Yards 1,550 Square Yards 168,700 Square Feet of Deck 66,100 Linear Feet • Paving • Earthwork • 4 Retaining Walls • 6 Bridges (25 Spans) • 835 Steel H-Piles Engineer’s Estimate $39,664,584 +19.1% +17.7% +16.0% +14.8% $50,000,000 +9.6% +9.1% +7.0% $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 Bid Price $25,000,000 $43,285,624 $45,995,030 $43,466,557 $45,548,442 $47,238,193 $46,689,878 $42,435,333 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Wagman Dick Corp. Corman Flippo Cherry Hill Fru-Con Shirley / Tidewater Contractor

  23. I-295 Contract MA-1

  24. Challenge:Re-bidding Contract BR-3

  25. Bridge Contract BR-3 Designer: PTG (Parsons) Advertised: August 13, 2001 1,204 Plan sheets / 1,195 IFB pages # Addenda: 7 # Questions: 130 Bids Opened: December 13, 2001

  26. Bid Opening Day-December 13, 2001 For the contract to build the substructure and superstructure of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. . . • Engineer’s Estimate . . . $487 million, the largest construction contract ever advertised by the Maryland State Highway Administration • One Bid . . . For $860 million by the joint venture of Kiewit, Tidewater & Clark (KTC), 75% (or $373 million) above the estimate • Funding Responsibility . . . By agreement in the Project’s Financial Plan, Maryland was responsible for covering any cost overruns on its contracts • Budget Implications . . . The difference between bid and estimate could not be covered by the existing budget and no readily available sources of additional funding (such as increased tolls).

  27. Washington Post-December 14, 2001

  28. Development of Engineer’s Estimate • Value Engineering review of initial estimates conducted by Project Team in 1999. • Engineer’s Estimate prepared by bridge design consultant 1999-2001 • Detailed review and approval by Federal Highway Administration • Acceptance by the USDOT Office of the Inspector General

  29. Bridge Contract BR-3 Approximate Quantities 40,400 Cubic Yards 4,500 Cubic Yards 50,200 Cubic Yards 50,900 Cubic Yards 101,700,000 Pounds 19,200 LF 45,000 LF • Precast Segment Concrete • Substructure Concrete for abutments • Substructure Concrete for piers • Superstructure Concrete • Fabricated Structural Steel • 410 Concrete Piles (24” Square) • 265 Round Steel Piles (2.5’ – 4.5’ Diameter) Engineer’s Estimate $487,193,589 +76.5% $900,000,000 $800,000,000 $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 Bid Price $859,954,042 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 Kiewit/Tidewater/Clark Contractor

  30. How Could This Have Happened?

  31. Potential Contractor Issues Resulting in Limited Competition • Uncertainty in the economy (especially after Sept. 11) • Contract size / complexity • Surety bonding issues  • Many mega-transportation projects across the US had a concurrent bidding period • Many contract specifications were not seen as "contractor friendly” • Uncertainty about the Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

  32. Immediate Decisions • Preserve the Approved Bridge Concept • Continue Building the Bridge’s Foundations • Act Quickly, but Get it Right • Collect the Best Advice Available

  33. Independent Review Committeeto Help Understand the BR-3 Bid • Committee of nationally recognized construction and design experts is providing an independent evaluation of the factors that inhibited competition and resulted in bid prices far in excess of the engineer’s estimate. • Evaluation includes recommendations that the MSHA will consider in gaining additional competition and reduced bid prices, such as; • negotiating with the sole bidder. • re-advertisement of the project. • repackaging the bid documents into smaller contracts and re-advertising. • Changes to the design of the project including value engineering recommendations, and changes in bid requirements that could result in more competition and reduced cost, are also being evaluated. Mission of Committee

  34. Membership on theIndependent Review Committee Tom Warne Chairman • Charles B. Perry II • John R. Lamberson • Delon Hampton • Webb W. Hayes • William A. Weseman • Arun M. Shirole • Clifford Freyermuth • Bob Ferguson

  35. Independent Review Committee Initiatives • Value Engineering (VE) Study • Contract Documents Review • Contractor Interviews • Re-advertisement Scenarios

  36. Review of Contract Documents • Were Requirements too Difficult / Confusing / Unclear ? • Were Contract Provisions Burdensome to Contractor ?

  37. Interviews with Contractors Potential Bidders Were Asked Their Perceptions Regarding: • Constructability • Schedule • Availability of Materials • Bonding / Insurance • Contract Oversight • Project Labor Agreement • Contract Terms • Contract Size • Competition from Other Megaprojects • Environmental Issues

  38. Objectives for Proceeding • Minimize Delay • Increase Competition • Decrease Cost of the Structure

  39. Minimize Delay • Move Some Work to Other Contracts • Advertise the Bascule Work ASAP

  40. Increase Competition • Break Contract into Three Smaller Contracts • Stagger Ad Dates of the Three Contracts • Clarify PLA Requirements • Make Contracts More Contractor Friendly • Conduct Nationwide Marketing Campaign

  41. Re-Advertisement Scenario( Advertise 3 Contracts ) VA Land-based Work (BR-3B) MD Marine Work (BR-3C) Bascule (BR-3A)

  42. Bascule Span Construction BR-3A BR-3B BR-3C

  43. Marketing Outreach • Contractors were notified in writing of project's progress • Advertisements were placed in major trade media • Personal calls were made to construction firms to: • Inform of changes to contract • Encourage to consider bidding • Request further suggestions for improving the project

  44. Refinements to Specifications • Reduced performance/payment bonds to 50% • Reduced insurance requirements • Lowered Retainage Provisions • Increased Mobilization Cap from 10% to 15% • Provided Lump Sum breakdowns • Identified VE suggestions • Allowed Payment for stored materials • Clarified PLA Requirement

  45. Value Engineering Changes • Steel box girders replaced with steel plate girders • Options of pre-casting piers or cast in place piers • V-piers refined to simplify tie beams and knuckle connection • Structural elements redesigned to increase uniformity and repeatability

  46. Bidding Results for BR-3A, BR-3B, and BR-3C • 18 contractors submitted bids for contracts BR-3A, BR-3B, and BR-3C either singly or as part of joint ventures • BR-3A (Bascule Contract) attracted 5 bidding teams • Low Bid: American Bridge/Edward Kramer & Sons for $186 million • 10.7 % over the estimate • BR-3B (Virginia Approach) attracted 7 bidding teams • Low Bid: Granite/Corman Construction for $115.5 million • 27.7% under the estimate • BR-3C (Maryland Approach) attracted 4 bidding teams • Low Bid: Edward Kramer & Sons/American Bridge/Trumbull for $191 million • 25.0% under the estimate

  47. Washington Post on the Re-bids

  48. Lessons Learned • Avoid advertising at the same time as other signature bridges, if possible • Remember that when it comes to signature bridges, the owner needs contractors more than they need the owner • Reach out to the contracting community early and often to spark and maintain interest • Try to make the contract terms contractor friendly • Remove as much uncertainty as possible from the contract prior to advertising • Emphasize the owner’s active involvement

  49. Lessons Learned (Continued) • Must balance need for competition with risks associated with multiple contractor interfaces • Use extreme caution when incorporating anything into a contract that might lessen competition • Techniques exist to mitigate contract interface risk, but no techniques exist to mitigate for a lack of competition

  50. Bridge Contract BR-3ABascule Spans Designer: PTG (Parsons) Advertised: July 2, 2002 585 Plan sheets / 815 IFB pages # Addenda: 5 # Questions: 206 Bids Opened: November 7, 2002 Work Area

More Related