CA NPS GOGA 433(1) – Point Bonita Lighthouse Bridge Replacement

Comments

Transcription

CA NPS GOGA 433(1) – Point Bonita Lighthouse Bridge Replacement
Edward Hammontree
Project Management Branch Chief
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Federal Highway Administration
2012 CMGC Peer Exchange
Boston, Massachusetts
May 23 & 24, 2012
CA NPS GOGA 433(1) – Point Bonita
Lighthouse Bridge Replacement
Who is Federal Lands?
• CFLHD is 14 western states and pacific
territories
Who is Federal Lands Highway?
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
FLHP program delivery
Non FLHP program delivery
ERFO program
4R Development and Reconstruction
3R Development and Rehabilitation
Structures
Surface Preservation
Special Projects
FLH Division Capabilities and Skills
•
Project Delivery
– Project Management
– Project Development
• Design
• Survey, Mapping,
Right-of-Way,
Utilities
• Environment
– Technical Services
• Safety
• Bridge
• Geotechnical
• Hydraulics
• Pavements
• Materials
(Laboratory &
Quality Assurance)
– Construction
Management
•
Program Administration
– Planning and Programs
• Alternative
Transportation/Community
Planning
• Forest Highway
• Park Roads
• ERFO/Scoping, Inventory,
GIS
• Agreements
– Administrative Programs
• Acquisitions
• Finance
• Administrative Services
• Information Technology
Who is Central Federal Lands?
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Strong PM Led Matrix Delivery
About 200 FTE & 140 WYs of A/Es
$150-$300M annual program
National Parks
National Forests
Defense Access Roads
State DOT’s and other public works
organizations.
♦ National Wildlife Refuges
♦ ERFO
♦ Others (planning, inventory, etc)
Point Bonita Lighthouse Bridge
Overview
• Project Purpose: Replace 156 foot timber pedestrian
suspension bridge
• Project Location: NPS-Golden Gate National Recreation
Area (GOGA)
• Partner: National Park Service (NPS)
• Budget: $2.0 million (includes PE & CE)
Pt. Bonita Lighthouse Bridge
Project Team
• CFL
Lead for Design, Contracting and contract administration
• HDR & Yeh – A/E Designer of Record
• Flatiron West – CMGC Prime Contractor
• NPS/GOGA – Project Owner and maintainer
Pt. Bonita Lighthouse Bridge
Project Details
156 foot span, 4.5 foot clear width
Total project budget of $1.9 Million
Construction schedule Sept-March
Point Bonita Historic District (bridge contributing structure) look
the same
• Land access by narrow 0.5
mile trail with tunnel
and 2 other ped bridges
•
•
•
•
Pt. Bonita Lighthouse History
 1855 – Original Lighthouse (elev. 260)
 1876/77 – Tunnel dug, new lighthouse
constructed (elev. 124)
 1940 – Path erosion and boardwalk
installed
 1954 – Bridge Constructed
 1981 – Lighthouse keeper left
Bridge History
 1954 - Original construction
 1979 – Cables replaced, load limit
reduced to 950 lbs (5 people)
 1991 – Cables replaced
 2007 – Load limit reduced
to 2 people
 2010 – Bridge closed to the
public
Project Constraints
• Limited Funding (no program funds/manage to budget)
– $1.6 million (line item)
– $270k GOGA additional funds
• Limited construction window
– September 1st to March 31st
• 50 year design life (partner expectation)
• Maintain access to lighthouse during construction
• Long lead time for specialized materials
– Tropical Hardwood
– Stainless Steel
• Hazardous materials removal (ground and paint)
• Difficult Site Access
CFLHD Experience with
Alternative Contracting
• FAR Part 15 “Contracting by Negotiation”
• Point Bonita; first CMGC by CFL
• CFL experience with D/B, Best Value,
MATOC and other contracting methods
and techniques.
• High contracting acumen within Project
Management discipline
Background Info Used for Evaluating
Use of CMGC
• EDC summit in Denver CO 2010
• SEP 14 report by UDOT
• Consultations with industry
Why CMGC for Point Bonita Lighthouse bridge
• Criteria for project selection
– Unique design features needing contractor input
(price/schedule)
– Advanced material purchase necessary to meet
project schedule
– Ensure viable funding available based on
preliminary scope
– Drive completion of NEPA by NPS
– Site access constraints
• Upfront risk allocation
CFLHD CMGC Process
Prepared 30% design plans
Sources Sought Notice FedBizOpps 15 days
Prepare RFP 21 days
Proposal time for offerors 30 days
Evaluation and award 10 days
6 months to complete PD activities and initiate
construction
• 7 months to complete construction
•
•
•
•
•
•
Construction Manager/General
Contractor (CMGC) Process
• Jan. 2011- Best Value Procurement (FAR part 15)
– Based on 30% design
• Feb. 2011- Award CMGC contract
– Flatiron West Inc.
– Option to award construction (Option X)
• Feb. to June 2011- Final Design Support
• May 2011- Early procurement of materials
– Tropical hardwood- Ekki
– Stainless steel rope net, cables, anchors, etc
• July/Aug 2011- Option X negotiations
CMGC Procurement Approach
• Best Value selection w/o discussions but
reserved right after proposals
• Allowed clarifications during proposal phase
• Site review
• Technical (12 pages) and Price proposal req’d
Contract Award Details
• Technical significantly more important than
price
• Base schedule (Design Support) and bid
option (Construction)
• Past performance questionnaire used
• Gov reserved right to not award Option for
construction
Technical Evaluation Criteria
(Descending Order of Importance)
• Bridge construction experience
• Methods, Approach and schedule
– Access
– Construction method/erection scheme
– Materials and fabrication (procurement and schedule adherence)
– Coordination and communication
– Construction schedule
• Qualifications, Experience and Capability
Evaluation Criteria (Price)
• Design Support
–
–
–
–
–
Technical reviews
Field Reviews
Pricing and estimating support
Constructability support
Construction Schedule preparation
• Construction Pricing and Risk
– Bid Item Pricing
 Used for Evaluation of offer
 Basis for final price negotiations
– Risk and Cost Discussion
 Costs associated with perceived risks and discussion on possible
cost mitigation
 Used for reasonableness determination of price
Construction Pricing
• Pricing for option for construction
– Price scope changes along the way
– GET YOUR KEY PROJECT PRICE POINTS (70, 95, 99)
including advance materials purchase costs
– Use an “ICE”. We were the “ICE”
– Know your scope and what you can and cannot live
without
– Project team needs to hold each other accountable to
work this process. Identify impacts to project budget
immediately
Construction Pricing
Contractor Pricing
$2M
$
Proposed Budget
$0
30%
99%
100%
Phase of Construction Pricing
Initial
Neg.
Final
Neg.
CMGC Procurement Summary
• Seven offerors
• Technical range high between offferors, two
separated themselves
• Price range 35%
• Selected highest technical, 5th lowest price.
• Scope and budget added during final design phase
• Awarded Option X after multiple negotiations to
CMGC contractor
Construction Execution
Materials On Hand
• Advanced purchase of Hardwood. Ekki from
Africa $250k…..most
• Advanced purchase of stainless steel items
(Buy American Act). $150k……most
Site Map
• 3/4 mile trail
• 118 ft long tunnel (6 ft
high)
Trailhead
Parking
Point Bonita
Site Access
• 3/4 mile trail
• 118 ft long tunnel (6 ft
high)
Hazardous Material Removal
Anchor Block excavation
Lead paint
Timber Shop Assembly
Temporary Access to Lighthouse
Concrete Pour
West anchor block
SE wind anchor
Bridge Assembly
West anchor block
West Buttress Stabilization
Rope Netting
Shotcrete Prep
Painting
Ribbon Cutting 4/13/2012
Project Outcomes
• Construction delivered $75k under award
amount
• On schedule
• Outstanding quality
• Significant reduction in CM’s. One during CN
• Quick contract closeout…no claims
• Extremely satisfied customer and Public
Benefits of CMGC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall schedule reduction
Shared risk allocation……Budget reliability
Price validation key to budgetary restrictions
Drove NEPA timelines from NPS
Schedule reliability
Two phase award
Shared ownership and Partnership
Quality outcome
Challenges of CMGC for CFL
• Getting good response to owner
questionnaires on contractor
• Getting commitment and follow through from
project team during preconstruction phase.
• Getting NPS commitment to process.
• Knowledge of process by parties
• Price points
Lessons Learned
• Do a “Pre-Con” after initial award to CMGC
contractor
• Don’t assume equal knowledge of process and
expectations of team members
• Include in your RFP support from the entire
contractor team or resources during preconstruction (key subs, suppliers).
• Do your price points along the way. UDOT model
• Build trust everyday with your team.
• Do a project closeout session (ours 5/31/12)
One Final Thought? Would CMGC result in this?
Questions

Similar documents