1 / 33

Design-Build Procurement Overview

Design-Build Procurement Overview. August 2, 2011 Jeff Roby, P.E. – Design-Build Program Manager VDOT Alternate Project Delivery Office. Design-Build Success Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia. Project Overview. 0.7 Miles 4 lanes

toyah
Download Presentation

Design-Build Procurement Overview

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. Design-Build Procurement Overview August 2, 2011 Jeff Roby, P.E. – Design-Build Program Manager VDOT Alternate Project Delivery Office

  2. Design-Build SuccessBattlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

  3. Project Overview • 0.7 Miles • 4 lanes • 2 bridges, over 1200 ft long each

  4. Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

  5. Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

  6. Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia

  7. Battlefield Parkway – Leesburg Virginia Design-Builder – Shirley Design/Build, LLC (Lorton, VA) Project Cost - $35M RFQ – August 2006 Shortlist – October 2006 RFP – January 2007 Technical/Price Proposals Submitted – April 2007 Project Award – June 2007 (highest tech score/lowest price) Groundbreaking – January 2008 Open to Traffic – September 2009

  8. 25 -Current Design-Build Projects Awarded for Construction • Bristol District • 460 Connector Phase 1 - $90.0M • ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $4.7M • ARRA Multiple Culvert Rehab – $2.9M • Fredericksburg District • ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $6.6M • Multiple Culvert Rehab – $3.1M • Hampton Roads District • Malbone Wetland Mitigation Site - $1.3M • Middle Ground Boulevard - $32.6M • Lynchburg District • Rte 29 Bridge Replacement - $6.7 M • ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $9.5M • ARRA Multiple Culvert Rehab – $2.9M • Multiple Culvert Rehab – $3.0M

  9. Current Design-Build Projects Awarded for Construction (cont.) • Nova District • I-66 Pavement Rehabilitation - $37.9M • Pacific Boulevard Widening – $1.9M • Rte 50 Widening – $67.8M • Route 27/244 Interchange - $31.5M • Pacific Boulevard Extension - $5.4M • Richmond District • Capital Trail (Sherwood Forest) – $8.8M • Rte 36 BRAC – $7.3M • I-295/Meadowville Interchange – 6.3M • Salem District • 1-81 Truck Climbing Lanes – $75.4M • Rte 61 Bridge Replacement – $15.6M • ARRA Multiple Culvert Rehab – 0.9M • Staunton District • 1-81 Truck Climbing Lanes - $74.2M • ARRA Multiple Bridge Rehab – $9.0M • Clifton Forge Bridge Replacement – 3.5M

  10. Candidate Design-Build Projects • Nova District • I-66 Active Traffic Management - $32.3M • 2 Bridge Replacements - $3M • Salem District • Valley View Interchange – $70.9M • Staunton District • I-64 Exit 91 Interchange - $43.3M • Culpeper District • I-64 Zion Crossroads Interchange - $7.9M

  11. Design-Build Procurement

  12. AASHTO Guide for Design-Build Procurement • Proposal Evaluation Plan should be: • Fair • Equitable • Transparent

  13. AASHTO Guide for Design-Build Procurement • Guidelines for Evaluation Planning • Be as explicit and as objective as possible with all evaluation criteria • Clearly state the evaluation criteria and weight given for each item • Ensure that the evaluation team is highly qualified and understands how to apply the criteria • Clearly state the requirements of the RFP including what will be considered a non-responsive proposal

  14. VDOT Evaluation Basics • Goal of evaluation is to select the best value proposal in terms of price and quality • Offerors have expectations that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with the “rules” laid out in the procurement documents • Offerors are given opportunity to ask questions related to the procurement documents • Evaluation team has the right to seek a clarifications to fully understand information contained in a proposal • As a public agency, procurement must be ready to respond to public scrutiny

  15. Evaluation Objectives RFQ versus RFP • RFQ Stage - Conceptual • For qualifying/short listing • Capabilities • Demonstrated experience • Key personnel • Project understanding • Relatively low cost for proposal preparation

  16. Evaluation Objectives RFQ versus RFP • RFP Stage - Detailed • Detailed technical proposal with lump sum price • Design concept • Approach to construct project • QA/QC program implementation • Binding • High cost for proposal preparation

  17. RFP Evaluation Process • Technical Proposal – Weighting 30% • Price Proposal – Weighting of 70% • Scoring Range Application • Evaluation Criteria included for each submittal requirement • Guidelines for Evaluation of Design-Build Proposals (on VDOT website)

  18. Price Proposal • Lump Sum Amount • Proposal Guaranty • Lowest Bid Receives Maximum Points • Other Bids Pro-rated from Maximum Points • Opened and Read Publicly • Combined with Technical Score to Determine Overall Proposal Score

  19. Combining Technical Score with Price Many Procurements – Highest Technical Score also has Lowest Price

  20. Design-Build Procurement Challenges • Scope issues during the RFP phase • Adequate resources dedicated to evaluate proposals • Defined process for evaluating proposals • Bid protests

  21. Bid Protest Case Study • 460 Connector – Bristol, Virginia • Twin high-level bridge structures approximately 1600 feet in length • Mainline four-lane divided highway totaling approximately 4800 feet in length • A two-lane connector road to Route 80, including a second multi-span bridge over Rte 768 and Hunts Creek • Contract Value was estimated at $100M

  22. Case Highlights • $100M project derailed by a lawsuit • VDOT prevailed at the temporary Injunction hearing • Plaintiff pursued and case went to trial • At trial plaintiff narrowed its protest to one ground, demonstrating years of experience on the resume form

  23. The RFP stated: • “The Right of Way Manager shall have at least ten (10) years of experience in managing complex right of way projects. Evidence of this experience will be of sufficient detail on the resume to satisfy the requirements.”

  24. The RFP stated: • “The Right of Way Manager shall have at least ten (10) years of experience in managing complex right of way projects. Evidence of this experience will be of sufficient detail on the resume to satisfy the requirements.”

  25. Plaintiffs argument was two-fold: • The years of experience listed in section (d) of the resume form did not constitute sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. • The experience and qualifications presented on the resume were not that of a Right of Way Manager.

  26. 460 Connector – Resume Form

  27. Judges Decision was in favor of the Plaintiff: • Providing a mere number of years of experience is not “sufficient detail” as anticipated by the RFP. • Moreover, the Right of Way Manager failed to buttress his assertion with corresponding detail. • The Court has determined that the resume was deficient in that it failed to provide evidence of sufficient detail to support the contention that the Right of Way Manager had more than the ten-year minimum experience required by the Department.

  28. Victory from the jaws of defeat: • Set in motion a change in process • Realization VDOT had to make improvements to our procurement process • Documented Procedures and Guidelines – “Guidelines for Evaluation of Design-Build Proposals” (On VDOT’S DB Website) • Training for Evaluators • Provide more time and resources for Technical Proposal Evaluations

  29. Recommendations for moving ahead: • Continued training of evaluation team members and design-build staff • Define limited number of pertinent “differentiators” for each project • Exploring 2-phase/lowest price for appropriate projects • Exploring 1-phase/lowest price for appropriate projects

  30. QUESTIONS ?

More Related