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