handout bruce johnson.pdf

8/20/2019 handout Bruce Johnson.pdf

1/24

Project Delivery Process

Bruce Johnson, P.E.State Bridge Engineer

Oregon Department of Transportation

February 1, 20102

Ou t l i n e O u t l i n e

Introduction

1. Planning

2. Design (through DAP)

Break

3. Design (DAP through PS&E)

4. Bid and Award

5. Construction

Summary

P ro j e c t De l i v e r y P r o c es s Duration of each phase

• Plan: 0-10 years

• Design: 3 months - 10 years

• Build: 6 months - 4 years

• Operate/Maintain: 10-100+ years

Preservation projects, low duration is for pave-only

Other factors impacting duration• Project location

– Projects in urban locations have more stakeholders(e.g. city government, neighborhoods)

– Require great care in design and in constructionplanning (get in, get it done, get out)

• Stakeholder involvement

– State & local elected officials, local & regionalgovernments, Regional/District offices

– Nine state agencies, eighteen federal agencies, 9federal recognized tribes

– Citizen groups and individual citizens, businessorganizations

P r o j e ct D el i v er yP r o j e ct D el i v er y

M o d u l e 1 M o d u l e 1

• Planning and Program Development


2/24

P l a n n i n g • How projects

are identified,

scoped andapproved

• Managementsystems

• IAMPs

• Refinementplans

• StakeholderInvolvement

Duration –0-10 years

What is Transportation Planning?

1. Monitoring existing conditions;

2. Forecasting future growth by area and corridor;3. Identifying current and future needs and analyzing

various transportation improvement strategies to addressthose needs;

4. Developing plans of alternative solutions;

5. Estimating the impact of those solutions

6. Developing a financial plan.

H ow p r o j ec t s a r e i d e n t i f i e d ,

sc oped and a pp r o ved

• TransportationPlanning Studies

• ManagementSystems

• Scoping

• STIP Approval

• Public Input

Transportation

Planning

Management

System

Scoping

STIP

Appr oval

M PO a n d L o ca l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

P l a n n i n g Comp o n e n t s

• Transportation System Plans

• Regional Transportation Plans

• Refinement Plans

• Transportation Facility Plans

T r a n sp o r t a t i o n Sy s t em P l a n s

(TSPs)

• Approval by Local Government

– States may assist Locals with funding

and involvement in process

• Stakeholder Involvement

– Primarily at local level

• Risks

– Plans are not fiscally constrained.

– Projects not fully prioritized.

Reg i o n a l T r a n s p or t a t i o n

P l an s (RTPs)

• Official, mandated multimodal

transportation plan for metropolitanareas over 50,000 in population

Considerable autonomy – State hasone seat at the table

• Financially Constrained Project List

• All this work gets used in NEPA


3/24


4/24

P r o j ect P r i o r i t i z a t i o n

• Transportation Commission (TC) sets funding

allocations• TC sets program criteria and goals

• Planning and management systems list potentialprojects across state

• Projects from Management Systems primarilyprioritized by regions with stakeholder inputwhere appropriate

• Modernization projects prioritized by AreaCommissions on Transportation – According to STIP criteria

• Region teams scope projects

Pr o j e ct Scop i ng

• Performed by regions (in-house or

outsourced)• Completed each STIP update cycle by amulti-disciplinary team

• Develops rough project cost estimates• Documents project plan in the project

prospectus• More projects are scoped than end up in

the STIP• Projects constrained to available funds

regionally and statewide

Sco p i n g P er f o rm a n c e KPM # 2 3

Projects vs Estimate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% At or Below Estimate Target

At or Below Estimate 73% 48% 56%

Target 80% 80% 80% 80%

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Devel op i n g t he ST I P

• STIP is the document identifying high levelscope, construction year and funding

• Draft STIP compiled for public review

• TC adjusts as necessary

• Air quality conformity

• Final Region review

• TC & FHWA/FTA approval

• Process occurs every two years

2013-15 STIP Schedule

• Funding Allocations – October 2009

• Early Public Input – Thru December 2009

• Project Priorities – December 2009

• Scoping – January – May 2010

• Draft STIP – August 2010

• Public Review – Thru April 2011

• STIP Approval – June 2012

ST IP and F i n a n c i a l P l a n

• STIP is the program and schedulingdocument identifying scope andprogrammed amounts

• Financial Plan is the internal accounting journal for all projects – each regionmanages its own plan.

• Financial Plan accounts for actual projectobligations and authorizations such asincreased ROW and bid prices.


5/24

St a k eh o l d e r I n v o l v em en t

• Required throughout process

• Stakeholder Groups Can Include:– Area Commission on Transportation

– Citizen Advisory Committees

– Technical Advisory Committees

– Oversight Teams

– Natural Resource Agencies

• Targeted Outreach

• Open House / Public Meetings

St a k eh o l d e r I n v o l v em en t

• Other Techniques

Stakeholder involvement is front loadedduring planning, which adds time and canbe costly, but results in projects that arebetter integrated into surroundingcommunities and have less chance ofbeing challenged during design or formalenvironmental process.

T r a n sp o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Co st

• The transportation long-range planningprograms within the regions provide theplanning work necessary to moveprojects into project delivery – howeversometimes planning functions arecovered by project budget

• Average transportation long-rangeplanning expenditures are $6.9 M per

year over the past 6 years

M ana gem en t Sy s t em Co st

O r e go n E x am p l e

• Bridge $4.5 M*

• Pavement $0.5 M

• Safety $0.5 M

All costs are average annual costs

* Includes Bridge Inspection and Load Rating

ST IP Scop i n g Cost

• Regions are responsible for scopingprojects for the STIP

• Regions generally scope more projectsthan actually end up in the STIP

• Average cost for STIP scoping is $1.8Mper year over the past 6 years

Cos ts

3.0%0.4%5.2%9.1%Total (%)

Construction

ConstructionEngineering

Bid & Award

RoW / UtilityRelocation

Design

3.0%0.4%5.2%9.1%Planning/Scoping

Safety/OpsPreservationBridgeModernizationPhase


6/24

W ha t i s Su c cess f o r P l a n n i n g ?

• Program development meets Commissioncriteria and goals

• Problem identification supported bycommunity’s vision

• Help establish priorities• Help set reasonable performance

expectations• Reduce duplication and alternatives in

NEPA process• Planning decisions are relied upon in

Project Delivery

Co n t i n u o u s Im p r o v em en t

• Involve design office, area, district insystem and project planning processes

• Involve planners in Project Delivery toensure planning commitments are met

• Training – Planning for non-planners• Leadership teams integration Planning

Business Line Team and Project DeliveryBusiness Line Team

• Asset Management: Expand the use ofmanagement systems to assets otherthan bridges, pavements and safety

Co n t i n u o u s Im p r o v em en t F u t u r e

• Refining STIP Criteria• Linking Planning Environmental Process

(LPEP)

D i s cuss i on P r o j e ct D el i v er yP r o j e ct D el i v er y


• Design (Kick-off through DesignAcceptance Package (DAP))

• Project Development


7/24

Des i gn(Kick-off through Design Acceptance Milestone )

• NEPA


• PreliminaryDesign

• DAP Criteria

• Number & Typesof Deliverables

• Approvals

P ro j ec t De l i v er y

• Project approved thru STIP• Projects handoff to Area Managers and

Project Development Team (PDT) forP r o j e ct D e v e lo p m e n t (environmentalstudy, preliminary design, ROWacquisition, and final design) throughPS&E

St a r t i n g a P r o j ec t Desi g n

• Assign Project Team Leader

• Identify Project Team

• Map out process for project development

• Review and confirm available information

- Scoping Document

- Project Prospectus

- Refinement Plans

- Draft project schedule- Project Funding

Ke y F a ct o r s d r i v i n g d u r a t i o n o f

P r o j e ct Deve l opm en t

• Project location

• Public & stakeholder involvement

• Work Type

• NEPA

• Right of Way

(Impacts during 2nd

phase ofproject development)

P ro j ect L o ca t i o n

• Project Location

– Projects in urban locations have morestakeholders (e.g. city government,neighborhoods)

– Require great care in design and inconstruction planning (get in, get itdone, get out)

St a k e h o l d er I n v o l v em en t

• Stakeholder Involvement

– State & local elected officials, local &

regional governments,Areas/Districts, EconomicRevitalization Teams

– Nine state agencies, eighteen federalagencies, nine federally recognizedtribes

– Citizen Advisory Committees,stakeholder groups, businessorganizations


8/24

W o r k Ty p e

• Modernization

• Bridge

• Preservation

• Safety and Operations

# of projects by work type

Modernization Projects Bridge Projects Safety Projects Preservation Projects Operations Projects

Operations

Preservation (101)

Modernization (67)

Bridge (106)

Safety (63)

Note: Pie slice s which have been pulled out represent OTIA and Earmarks.

P r i m a r y w o r k t y p es co u n t & v ol um e

# of projects by work type

Operations (73)

Preservation(101)

Modernization(67)

Bridge (106)

Safety(63)

Note: Pie slices whichhave beenpulled outrepresentOTIA and Earmarks.

Amount in Millions

$522

$394$114

$534

$76

W h y i s t he w o r k t y p e i m p o r t a n t ?

• Modernization and complex bridgeprojects take more time

• Greater complexity in design, moretasks to design

A modernization project can typically take a year

or more in design than a preservation project, all

other things being equal.

W ha t i s NEPA?

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)• Goals include avoiding, minimizing or mitigating

the impact to socioeconomic, natural, andcultural resources by – Ensuring consideration of environmental

impacts prior to taking action – Preventing or mitigating damage to the

environment, – Enhancing the health and welfare of people, – Enriching understanding of natural resources

important to the nation• Iterative Process

• Full public disclosure

W ha t i s NEPA?

• NEPA requires a rigorous process,including public involvement and scientific

analysis in order to reach anenvironmentally informed decision.

• NEPA requires full disclosure aboutmajor actions taken by Federal agencies,including alternatives to the actions,impacts, and possible mitigation.

NEPA A r eas o f Concer n

• Socioeconomic(noise, visual, environmental justice)Title VI, Civil Rights Act 1964

• Natural environment(flora, fauna, wetlands, endangeredspecies, air quality, water quality)Section 404, Clean Water Act

• Cultural resources(archaeological, historic, parks)Section 4 (f) & 6(f), Land and WaterConservation Fund Act of 1965


9/24

NEPA C lasses o f Ac t i on s

Class 1 – Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) – Record of DecisionThere will be an environmental impact

Class 2 – Categorical Exclusion (CatEx)

No significant environmental impacts anticipated

Class 3 – Environmental Assessment (EA)

Finding of No Significant Impacto r elevate to an EIS

Uncertain if there is an environmental impact

W ha t D et er m i n e s NEPA

C la s s i f i c a t i o n?

Environmental scoping to determine:

– Context and intensity of the proposedaction and potential impacts

– Applicable environmental regulationsand implications

– Potential controversy

– Overall complexity

En v i r o nm en t a l Cl a s si f i c a t i o n

1

211

66

26

15

Class 1 EnvironmentalImpact Statement

Class 2 CategoricalExclusion

Programmatic Exclusion

Class 3 EnvironmentalAssessment

Undetermined

W hy i s En v i r o nm en t a l C l a ss

i m p o r t a n t ?

Class 1 and Class 3 projects require asignificant amount of study and manytasks before a preferred concept designcan be selected and detailed designwork can proceed.

C l a s s 1 ( E I S ) NEPA processes can add 3-5 years ormore to project development, and C l a s s 3 ( EA ) NEPA processes can add 2-3 years

Reco r d o f Deci s i o n (ROD ) Class 1 EI S

A Record of Decision (ROD) is the federalenvironmental decision document, issued

by FHWA, which: – Explains the reasons for the project decision,

– Summarizes any mitigation measures that willbe incorporated in the project, and

– Documents any required section 4(f) approval

• Record of Decision completes the NEPAprocess for Class 1 projects

Ca tego r i c a l Ex c l u s i o n s (Ca tEx )Class 2

• CatEx projects are exempt from the requirementto prepare an EA or an EIS, all other applicable

environmental regulations must be compliedwith, and…

• Documentation supporting the CatEx is required

• Impacts must be avoided

• Unavoidable impacts must be minimized

• Measures to mitigate unavoidable adverseimpacts must be incorporated


10/24

F i n d i n g o f N o Si g n i f i c a n t Im p a c t

( FONS I )

Class 3, EA

• Federal Environmental Review DecisionDocument Issued by FHWA

• Documents why the proposed action willnot have significant Impacts

• Outlines reasons why EIS-level analysis isNOT required

• FONSI attached to revised EA— Completes NEPA Process

NEPA D el i v e r a b l es Can include:

• Technical reports including mitigationplans

• Project alternatives

• Traffic modeling

• Draft document and public hearing

• Recommended alternative

• Land Use actions/decisions

• Final environmental document

• FONSI or ROD

• MOA for mitigation agreements

E IS T im el i n e & De ci s i o n Po i n t s OR Example - Collaborative Environmental& Transportation Agreement for Streamlining

CETAS was signed byOregon’s state and federaltransportation andenvironmental agencies in2001 to support environmentalstewardship and advanceprocedural improvements tostreamline the environmentalreview process for ODOT’s

major transportation projects

PE Desi g n De l i v er a b l es - PDT

• Field surveys, mapping

• Engineering reports (hydraulics, geotechnical)

• Pavement design

• Sign, signal,& illumination designs• Preliminary Roadway design

• Access Mgmt. Strategy & Official Project AccessList

• Preliminary R/W maps

• Interchange Area Management Plans*

• Intergovernmental Agreements

• Bridge TS&L

Des ign Accep t an ce

Package (DAP )

• Major decision point. Project go/no go to

final design• Design footprint finalized for R/W,

environmental actions

• All elements included

• Project team agrees to be bound byfootprint

• Area Manager, Design Manager certify

• Start Permit Process


11/24

ST IP F i n a n c i a l P l a n

• Each region and Program manages itsown STIP financial plan and isaccountable for balancing its plan

- Region Mod, Bridge, Preservation,Safety

• Financial Plan includes all project costs:PE, R/W, utilities, constructionobligations, authorizations and changesin project costs

St r eam l i n ed P r o cesses

T im e Redu c t i o n s

• Project Team approach

• Prospectus

• Expanded Part III of the prospectus

• Scoping Documents

• Mitigation Banking

• Programmatic Permits

• Environmental Baseline Reports

• Improved Environmental Compliance


I n i t i a t i v e s

• Improve environmental scopingmethods

• Annual reporting to regulatory agencies& FHWA (TAC2)

• Develop/Expand Mitigation BankingPrograms (include other resources)

• Expand use of performance standards

• Develop new programmaticagreements with regulatory agencies

• ‘Batch’ projects by similar type:

Bridge replacements

Culvert replacements

Interchanges (Rural Category &Urban Category)

Preservation


I n i t i a t i v e s

Pr ocess Cha l l eng es

• “Right sizing” public & stakeholderinvolvement

• Resource challenges (design, drafting,technical specialties, environmental)

• FHWA regulatory oversight roleinconsistencies

Pr ocess Cha l l en ges

CAT -EX Env i r o nm en t a l Si g n - o f f

• FHWA requires no final design or ROW

purchase with federal dollars until permitsare in-hand, all environmental workcomplete

• States can cover ROW purchase with statefunds with state funds being used ascredited for state match

• Will add up to one year to projectdevelopment for some Class 2 projects


12/24

Discussion / Break


13/24

Project Delivery Process

Modules 3, 4, & 5

Bruce Johnson, P.E.State Bri dge Engineer

Oregon Department of Transportation

February 1, 2010

P r o j e ct D el i v er yP r o j e ct D el i v er y


Design

(Design Acceptance Package (DAP) through

Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E))

Des ign

(Des ign Accep t an ce Package (DAP ) t h r ough P lans ,

Spec i f i c a t i ons & Es t ima t es (PS&E ) )

• Environmental permitting

• Right of Way

• Construction (PS&E)

documents

• Project Delivery methods

• Mobility

• Stakeholder involvement

Desi g n Accep t an ce Packag e

(DAP ) M i l est o n e

• Establishes the project “footprint” for: “Pens down” (avoid rework)

Environmental permitting (if needed)

Right-of-way acquisition (if needed)

• Confirms readiness to developconstruction contract documents

• Concurrence of project stakeholders

Desi g n (DAP – PS&E)

Pr ocesses —Ove r v i ew

• Environmental (EIS/EA) complete, obtain permits Critical Path (6-18 months)

• Right-of-Way

Critical path (1-2+ Years)

• Design Phase

Timeline 1-2 Years (Class 2, DAP-PS&E)

• Permits and Right of Way are now sequential,preliminary design is concurrent

Desi g n (DAP – PS&E) R IGH T -OF-WAY T i me l i n e ( 1- 2 yea r s )

Finalize Right of Way Maps and Descriptions

Right of Way Certification at PS&E

FHWA Authorization for R/W Acquisitions

Appr aisal s

Negotiations with Property Owners

Relocation Issues (if necessary)

Condemnation (no agreement) to possession

DAP

PS&E


14/24

Desi g n (DAP – PS&E) DES IGN Tim e l i n e ( t y p i c a l l y 1- 2 y r s a f t e r DAP )

Preliminary Plans

75% Complete

Advan ced Plan s

95% Complete

Final Plans

100% Complete

Plans, Specifications , Estimates (PS&E)

DocumentsPS&E

Quality Control


P l a n s f or Con s t r u c t i o n

• Roadway Plans• Bridge Plans

• Traffic Structures Plans

• Retaining Wall Plans

• Soundwall Plans

• Material Source and DisposalSite Plans

• Roadside Development Plans• Geotechnical Plans

• Hazardous Materials Plans

• Wetland Mitigation Plans• Erosion Control Plans

• Hydraulic Plans

• Water Quality and DetentionPlans

• Traffic Control Plans

• Sign Plans• Striping Plans

• Signal Plans

• Illumination Plans

• Construction Cost Estimate

• Construction Schedule

• Special Provisions• Utility Conflict List

• Constructability Review

• Value Engineering Study• Insurance Risk Assessment

• Access Managem ent

• PS&E Submittal Plan Review

• Assembl e and Submi t FinalPS&E to Office of Pre-Letting

• Bidding Package


P r o j ec t T eam App r o a ch

• Traditional process - design was moresequential, requiring considerable rework

• New process - project teams include allengineering and other disciplines workingconcurrently

• Construction and maintenance included inproject teams

‘Critical path’ (cantake 1-2+ years)

Sensitiverelationships withproperty owners &public

Property ownerrights


R i g h t o f W a y Comp l e x i t i es

20+

Environmentaldisciplines

10+ Regulatory &local agencies

Continualstakeholderinvolvement

Desi g n (DAP – PS&E) En v i r o nm en t a l P erm i t t i n g

Com p l e x i t i es

Costs

20.5%8.7%11.9%21.6%Total (%)

Construction

Construction

Engineering

Bid & Award

4.5%1.6%1.3%3.4%

RoW / Utility

Relocation

13.0%6.7%5.4%9.1%Design

3.0%0.4%5.2%9.1%Planning

Safety/

OpsPreservationBridgeModernizationPhase

* Right of way expenditures uncommonly low due to specific projects included in this report (largest projects completed were in rural areas orareas that did not involve significant right of way expenses.

* Projects with unusual expenditure patterns excluded (17 projects)

* 3 Design/Build projects excluded

* Based on projects 2nd noted between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2007 (completed projects)

* Only primary work types included

* State projects only


15/24

Success f o r P r o j e ct De l i v e r y i s :

• Minimize contract addenda

• Plans that are

– Permittable

– Biddable

– Buildable

– Maintainable

– Supported by the community

Success fo r P r o j e ct D el i v er y i s :

• Mobility is always considered at theproject and corridor level, process isworking well

• ROW Appropriate Disputes Resolutionprogram (independent mediators)

• RWDMS – document managementsystem and acquisition processstreamlining (phase 1)

Success f o r P r o j e ct D el i v e r y i s :

• DAP – Reduce need for design changes

• DAP (established footprint) vspreliminary plans

• Established Liaison Program

• Alternative contracting methods andincentives are used frequently to savetime – CMGC, D/B, incentive/disincentive

specification

Success f o r P r o j e ct D el i v er y i s :

• Clear roles and responsibilities – Leadership Teams – Better, timelier communications:

Operational notices, technical bulletins,documented procedures

– Decentralization (SASC) – Cradle-to-grave management – Focus on performance measures – OTIA III – Alternative Delivery business models

– Judicious selection of technologyimprovements.

Pr ocess Cha l l eng es

• Unforeseen issues, scope changes,new information resulting in

design modification• DAP “completeness” issues• Environmental Approval prior to

ROW and Final Design for Class 2projects

• Regulatory expectations aresubject to change

D iscuss i on


16/24

P r o j ec t Del i v er y M o d u l e 4

Bid & Award the Construction Contract

B i d & A w a r d

• PS&E Review

• Estimate

• Advertisement

• Procurement

• Award

• Stakeholder

Involvement

• Small Contracting

PS&E Rev i ew / E st im a t e

• Office of Project Letting - Review ofproject package from region PDT

• PS&E checklist

• Final engineer’s cost estimate

– Confidential

• Final estimate lines up with projectfunding

PS& E Rev i ew / E st im a t e

• Approval to advertise

• Provide contract documents to OPOand Project Managers Office

• PS&E review process and finalengineer’s estimate completed in 2weeks (5 weeks if full federal oversightrequired)

Adve r t i s emen t • Printing – state printer (2 weeks)

• Copy of ad for each project to be bid for

publication to Daily Journal of Commerce – Hard copy & electronic

• Ad posted on Procurement Office Websiteand Bid Express

• Communication with bidders exclusivelythrough Procurement Office and ProjectManager’s Office

P r o c u r emen t

• Bid opening

• Bid review for responsiveness andresponsibility

• Bid analysis to determine if award orrejection is in the best interest of thepublic

• Recommendation to award or reject


17/24

P r o c u r emen t

• Notice of intent to award

• 3 day timeframe for protest filing

• Construction authorization

• Review and execution of contract

Con st r u c t i o n Au t h o r i za t i o n

• Prepared by Procurement Office• Provide overview of costs that will be incurred

• Informational items

– Engineer’s estimate

– Name of low bidder

– Funding deposits received from others

• Construction authorization

– Lowest responsive bid

– Construction engineering budget

– Contingencies

– Anticipated items

F i n a l A p p r o v a l

• Chief Engineer

• Deputy Director

• TransportationCommission

• FHWA

• Notice toProceed

A w a r d

• Contract executed within 57 days of bidopening

• 2005 99% executed within 57 days




• Most are executed in 40 days or less

T im e f r am e s

• PS&E to bid opening - 45 days to 80days

– Includes advertisement. Approximately 3-5 weeks.

• Bid opening to notice to proceed – 57days

• Bid and award (Total) – 137 days (20weeks) maximum

Reasons f o r de l a y

• Protest

• Lawsuit• High bid price (analysis/justification)

• Local agency project budget approval

• Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goalcompliance

• Receipt of Insurance Certificate


18/24

S t a k e h o l d e r s ( c o n st r u c t i o n con t r a c t o r s )

• Coordination via Association ofGeneral Contractors• Key issues

– Bid advertising – Rejection of bids – Protest filings

Cos ts

21.3%8.9%12.0%21.7%Total (%)

Construction

Construction

Engineering

0.8%0.2%0.1%0.1%Bid & Award

4.5%1.6%1.3%3.4%

RoW / Utility

Relocation

13.0%6.7%5.4%9.1%Design

3.0%0.4%5.2%9.1%Planning


Success f o r P r o j e ct De l i v e r y i s :

• Electronic bidding (Bid Express)

• Contractors web portal

• Streamlined PS&E review phase

• Close coordination on bid planning with

special projects

• PS&E metrics

• PS&E checklist

Success fo r P r o j e ct D el i v er y i s :

• Electronic bid document distribution

• Continue to streamline process fromPS&E submission to award for smallprojects

• Procurement Office procurement vsregion procurement

• Small contracting web presence

Success f o r P r o j e ct D el i v er y i s :

Sm a l l C on t r a ct i n g

• Commitment to diversity

• 9th Circuit ruling impacts

• Disparity study (African American /Asian)

• FHWS waiver

• Assistance for small business to getinvolved with electronic bidding

Discuss ion


19/24

P ro j e ct De l i v er yP r o j e ct De l i v er y


Construction and Construction Management

Con s t r u c t i o n

Duration: 6 months –4 years

• Contract management

• Quality Assurance

• EnvironmentalCompliance

• Work Force Monitoring

• Dispute/Claimsresolution process

• Payment

• Final documentation


Con s t r u c t i o n Beg i n s

• Contractor supplies materials andperforms work according to contractand plans for construction

• Agency makes sure the contractorcompletes work as contracted

Co n t r a c t M a n a g em en t

P r o j e ct M ana g er

• What they do

–Project Manager assigned to administereach contract

– Assure compliance with contractrequirements

–Manage contract within constructionauthorization

–Negotiate changes as necessary

–Communicate with stakeholders


I n spec t o r s / Test e r s

• What they do

– Inspectors assigned to monitor anddocument progress

– Monitor quality, quantity, workmanship

– Central Materials Lab – AASHTOMaterials Reference Library - Certified

– Materials staff monitor quality ofmaterials

h1

Qu a l i t y Co n t r o l / Q u a l i t y A ssu r a n c e

(QA /QC )

• All test equipment and lab facilitiescertified by ODOT Central Lab

• All testing technicians certified byODOT Construction QA Unit

• Contractor provides Quality Controltesting at specified frequencies.

• ODOT Region Construction QA staffverify contractor results on randombasis.


20/24

Slide 41

h1 need to spell out AMRL....hwye77h, 11/4/2008


21/24

• Discrepancies must be investigatedand resolved

• Dispute resolution testing by CentralLab

• Fabrication Inspection at plant

• Central Lab provides specializedmaterials testing

• Construction Section providesspecialized support

Qu a l i t y Co n t r o l / Q u a l i t y A ssu r a n c e

(QA /QC ) Co n t r a c t M a n a g em en t

O t h e r r o l es i n Con st r u c t i o n

• Office staff to coordinatedocumentation and process payment

• Construction Section providessupport and statewide consistency.

En v i r o nm en t a l Comp l i a n c e

• Require contractor submittal of plansprior to starting work.

• Inspectors monitor compliance toplans and permits daily.

• Region Environmental Coordinatorsreview progress and provideassistance regularly.

• Regulatory Agencies visit projects

occasionally.

W o r k F o r ce M o n i t o r i n g

• Review Contractor submitted payrollsfor compliance to prevailing wagemonthly.

• Track progress of Contractor inmeeting:

- Workforce diversity goals

- DBE Participation goals

- Apprenticeship goals


• Delegated Change Order Authority- Project Manager$100,000 & 14 Days

- Area Manager$250,000 & 30 Days

- Region Manager$250,000 & 30 Days

- Contract AdministrationEngineer/Chief Engineer

Anything above


• Delegated overrun in AuthorizationAuthorities

- Project ManagerNone

- Area Manager$250,000

- Region Manager$500,000

- Oregon Transportation CommissionUnlimited


22/24

Cha nge O r d er P r o cess ( A p p r o x im a t e l y 1 50 0 p e r y e a r )

• PM Identifies need for ContractChange Order (CCO)

• PM develops details of CCO withEngineer of Record and Contractor

• PM negotiates cost of CCO

• PM gets necessary approvals for CCO

• PM executes CCO

P a ym e n t

• Monthly Estimate by 8th of each month

• Progress Payment to Prime by 23rd of eachmonth

• All payments require Quality/Quantitydocumentation

• Price Adjustments made for:

- Non-specification materials

- Changed work

- Incentive/Disincentives

- Material price escalation (Steel, fuel, asphalt)

• Retainage of 2.5% held until final acceptance

D i s p u t e / C l a im s Re so l u t i o n P r o c ess

• PM performs initial evaluation/resolution ofany dispute

• Use Third Party Neutral (Non-Binding)

• Claim Process:

- PM Review

- Region Level Review

- Agency Level Review

- Arbitration (Less than $25,000)

- Claim Review Board

- Litigation

F i n a l Do cum en t a t i o n & Ac c ep t a n c e

• On site work completed

• Acceptance of Project

• Completed Project

• Contact with Motor Carrier on any restrictions

Co n st r u c t i o n P r o g r am R i sk s

• Material Price Escalation

• Changing Field Conditions• Material Availability

• Variability in Materials & Workmanship

• Outsourcing Construction Engineering

St a k eh o l d e r I n v o l v emen t

• Daily communication with Contractor by PM staff.

• Frequent communications with effected local

agencies and local businesses.• Frequent communications with effected residences.

• Regular contact with impacted regulatory agencies.

• Regular contact with impacted utilities and railroad.

• Monthly meetings with Industry to work global

issues.


23/24

Costs

100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total (%)

69.6%85.0%81.3%71.6%Construction

9.1%6.1%6.7%6.7%

Construction

Engineering

0.8%0.2%0.1%0.1%Bid & Award

4.5%1.6%1.3%3.4%

RoW / Utility

Relocation

13.0%6.7%5.4%9.1%Design

3.0%0.4%5.2%9.1%Planning


Ke y Per f o rm an ce M ea su r e s

• #20 Jobs from Construction Spending

(2004 -10,000 2007 – 12,500)

• #22 Construction Timeliness

(2004 - 77% 2007 – 69%)

• #23 Construction on Budget

(2006 – 73% 2007 – 48%)

• #24 Certified Businesses

(2004 – 11.3% 2007 – 12.9%)

O t h er Co n s t r u c t i o n P r o g r am

M ea su r e s

• Volume of Contractor Payments

(2002 – $251 mil. 2007 - $520 mil)

• Unsettled Claims

(2002 - $27 mil. 2007 - $15 mil)

• % Authorization Expended

(2002 – 103.5% 2007 – 99.8%)

• % Construction Engineering

(2002 – 7.8% 2007 – 8.1%)

Co n t i n u o u s Im p r o v eme n t s

• Technician Certification Program

• Inspector Certification Program

• PM Training for ODOT & Consultants

• Web Based Contract Payment System

• Contractor Evaluations

• Change Order Database

• Construction section statewide

leadership team

D i s cuss i o n Scan 07-01Best Practices in Project Delivery Management

Project Management Structure

• cohesive, multidisciplinary teams that communicated

well• roles and responsibilities must be clearly understood

• effective hand offs

• accountability of PMs and technical support units

Risk Management

• manage schedule risks by not including projects in theSTIP until they have a Record of Decision (ROD)

• reduce project costs through a “Practical Design”philosophy


24/24

Scan 07-01 Findings Cont’d

Investment in Geographic Information System (GIS) and DataManagement Tools for Project Delivery

• GIS and data management systems were clearly beneficial.

• use of visualization software, three-dimensional (3D) animations,and 360-degree panoramas helps communication to stakeholders

Innovative Construction Contracting

• Innovative tools, such as DB, CMGC, and CMAR have benefits:fewer claims, improved relationships, faster project delivery, betterquality, and better cost control.

Scan 07-01 Findings Cont’dEarly and Continuous Community Involvement from Concept

through Construction

• In the Best Practices the team observed, community involvement isnot a singular moment but an effort from beginning to end. Thesestates didn’t wait for the media to tell their story; they proactivelygive information to the public using long-term tools, such as door-to-door flyers, and contemporary tools, such as YouTube and Twitter.

• Delegate responsibility for public communication directly with thepublic to the PM.

• Uniformly, states with Best Practices in public involvement workedhard to enhance relationships with outside stakeholders and otherswith whom they interacted.

Summary

“The right project at the right time at the right cost in the right way.”

The right way means do it right the first time, avoid rework, minimize

adverse impacts to business, residents, freight haulers, the traveling

public and the environment. The right way requires you to be risk-

conscious, process-oriented.

• Project Phases

• Common Issues

• STIP Composition

• Complexity and Variation in projects