1 BART Presentation AASHTO Trnsport Users Group AASHTO Trnsport Users Group 18 th TEA/TUG Conference...
-
Upload
lana-satter -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 BART Presentation AASHTO Trnsport Users Group AASHTO Trnsport Users Group 18 th TEA/TUG Conference...
1
BARTBART PresentationPresentation
AASHTO Trns•port Users Group AASHTO Trns•port Users Group
1818thth TEA/TUG Conference and Workshop TEA/TUG Conference and Workshop Daytona Beach, FL Daytona Beach, FL
November 2 - 10, 2005
Ohio Department of TransportationOhio Department of Transportation
2
What / Who is BART ?What / Who is BART ?
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
3
No, Wrong BART
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
Don’t have a Cow Man !
ODOTNEWS
4
BBidid AAnalysisnalysis R Revieweview TTeameam
The sharing of BART ideas and activities The sharing of BART ideas and activities with other agencies, departments and with other agencies, departments and
friends. friends.
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
5
BARTBARTBBidid A Analysisnalysis R Revieweview T Teameam
ODOT – Office of EstimatingODOT – Office of Estimating Jeff Hisem – AdministratorJeff Hisem – Administrator Three person diverse groupThree person diverse group
• Tim Pritchard Tim Pritchard • Michael GuckesMichael Guckes• David BuhnDavid Buhn
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
6
IntroductionIntroduction
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
“A Single Focused Mindset”
can be like a …
One Legged Stool
7
Where does BART sit ?Where does BART sit ?
Seat - DSS Seat - DSS (Decision Support System)(Decision Support System) The data & tools support and sustain the group’s The data & tools support and sustain the group’s
activitiesactivities Legs - ActivitiesLegs - Activities
Bid history productsBid history products Collusion and Questionable activity detectionCollusion and Questionable activity detection Market AnalysisMarket Analysis
Surface beneath the stoolSurface beneath the stool Activities exist upon an uneven & changing Activities exist upon an uneven & changing
foundation.foundation.BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
8
BBidid A Analysis nalysis RRevieweview T Teameam
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
DSSconnects to all activities
Bid
His
tory
Pro
duct
s
Collusion &
Questionable
Activity D
etection
Uneven & Changing Ground ODOT Environment
Market Analysis
9
The SeatThe Seat DSS (Decision Support System) databaseDSS (Decision Support System) database
• Necessary on-going support activitiesNecessary on-going support activities1.1. Data is checked, re-checked, then checked againData is checked, re-checked, then checked again
i.i. Examples of data verificationExamples of data verification
a)a) Project coordinates Project coordinates
b)b) Missing rejected contract bid tabsMissing rejected contract bid tabs
c)c) Changing field definitions, i.e. spec changes, vendor idsChanging field definitions, i.e. spec changes, vendor ids
2.2. Update approved asphalt plant & aggregate pit infoUpdate approved asphalt plant & aggregate pit info
3.3. Vendor affiliate trackingVendor affiliate trackingi.i. Pre-qualification Pre-qualification
ii.ii. Asphalt / Aggregate inspections (QC) and approvalAsphalt / Aggregate inspections (QC) and approval
iii.iii. Use external sources i.e. ODNR, Associations, ContractorsUse external sources i.e. ODNR, Associations, Contractors
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
10
11stst Leg Leg
Bid History ProductsBid History Products• FHWA / PR45 Reports & FHWA Bridge Report FHWA / PR45 Reports & FHWA Bridge Report • Bid History Catalog for CES and EstimatorBid History Catalog for CES and Estimator• Historical Bid Data for EstimatingHistorical Bid Data for Estimating• Annual Report “Summary of Contracts Awarded”Annual Report “Summary of Contracts Awarded”• Requests for Information (Internal & External)Requests for Information (Internal & External)
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
11
FHWA / PR45 ReportsFHWA / PR45 Reports
Two Quarterly Reports for the FHWATwo Quarterly Reports for the FHWA• Projects on the NHS Projects on the NHS • Firstly, a hardcopy report that provides Firstly, a hardcopy report that provides
information and $’s bid from the three lowest information and $’s bid from the three lowest bidders for each project.bidders for each project.
• Secondly, a computerized Focus report that Secondly, a computerized Focus report that provides 1) $ split between pavement and bridge provides 1) $ split between pavement and bridge and 2) $ amounts associated with different and 2) $ amounts associated with different concerned commodities for each project.concerned commodities for each project.
1.1. i.e. Asphalt, Excavation, Rein. Steel, Structural Concrete i.e. Asphalt, Excavation, Rein. Steel, Structural Concrete
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
12
Annual Report for the FHWAAnnual Report for the FHWA Criteria for report:Criteria for report:
• Determine NHS bridges and Non-NHS bridgesDetermine NHS bridges and Non-NHS bridges• Only New bridge decks or removed bridge Only New bridge decks or removed bridge
decksdecks Provide Info:Provide Info:
• Type of bridgeType of bridge• Cost of bridge deck area (Sq Ft or Sq M)Cost of bridge deck area (Sq Ft or Sq M)• No. of SpansNo. of Spans• Special Conditions: i.e. locations, height, Special Conditions: i.e. locations, height,
complexity, etc. complexity, etc.
FHWA / Bridge ReportsFHWA / Bridge Reports
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
13
Catalogs for CES & EstimatorCatalogs for CES & Estimator• DSS HIREG createdDSS HIREG created• Built using weighted averages or Built using weighted averages or
regression estimatesregression estimates
Bid History CatalogsBid History Catalogs
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
14
Historical Bid DataHistorical Bid Data
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
Tool used by EstimatorsTool used by Estimators Select “Item of Work” and returns Select “Item of Work” and returns
following attributesfollowing attributes• Project NumberProject Number• County Route & SectionCounty Route & Section• TypeType• QuantityQuantity• Estimated PriceEstimated Price• Awarded BidAwarded Bid• Low BidLow Bid• High BidHigh Bid• Average BidAverage Bid
15
Historical Bid DataHistorical Bid Data
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
16
Information RequestsInformation Requests
ExternalExternal• Contractors, OIG, AG, State Agencies, OTCContractors, OIG, AG, State Agencies, OTC• SAS, Excel Spreadsheets, Geomedia Maps SAS, Excel Spreadsheets, Geomedia Maps • Quantities, Avg Pricing, Worktypes, AreasQuantities, Avg Pricing, Worktypes, Areas
InternalInternal• Director, Construction, Accounting, FinanceDirector, Construction, Accounting, Finance• Presentations, Meetings, Projections/ForecastsPresentations, Meetings, Projections/Forecasts• Bundling, Asphalt Pricing, Aggregate Control,
Market Shares, Cost Indices
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
17
22nd nd LegLeg
Collusion & Questionable Activity DetectionCollusion & Questionable Activity Detection• Line Item Profiles (LIP’s)Line Item Profiles (LIP’s)• 80/20 Analysis80/20 Analysis• Asphalt AnalysisAsphalt Analysis
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
18
Line Item ProfilesLine Item Profiles
A Tool used to determineA Tool used to determine• Unbalanced BidsUnbalanced Bids• Front- end Loading Front- end Loading • Complementary BiddingComplementary Bidding
ODOT’s current LIP methodODOT’s current LIP method• Plotting bid line itemsPlotting bid line items
1.1. Any bidder who’s bid $ amount (of each line item) is Any bidder who’s bid $ amount (of each line item) is => +/- 1% of the total estimate of the project=> +/- 1% of the total estimate of the project
• Sham Bids Sham Bids • Inaccurate Inaccurate
EstimatesEstimates
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
19
Line Item ProfilesLine Item Profiles
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
20
80/20 Analysis80/20 Analysis
Collusion Pre-Test: Where to look Collusion Pre-Test: Where to look firstfirst
Technique:Technique:• Analysis by contract work-typeAnalysis by contract work-type
1.1. Select items of work that have 80% of $ in Select items of work that have 80% of $ in work-typework-type
2.2. Remove as-per-plan, lump sum, and eachRemove as-per-plan, lump sum, and each
3.3. Statistically standardize item price Statistically standardize item price information (Price Change/Distribution information (Price Change/Distribution Value) Value)
4.4. Compare different items of work Compare different items of work (apples to oranges)(apples to oranges)
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
21
Blending Price Movement with Bidding Behavior
Compare the Compare the nature of the nature of the median price median price change by year.change by year.
Red flag items with Red flag items with “too much” price “too much” price change from year change from year to year for a given to year for a given price range.price range.
Method not effective for items with “each”, “lump sum” or other hard-to-measure units.
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
22
Asphalt AnalysisAsphalt Analysis
Track ownership changes from 2000 to Track ownership changes from 2000 to presentpresent• Record mergers and acquisitions among paving Record mergers and acquisitions among paving
firmsfirms• Changes in bidding behaviorChanges in bidding behavior• Ownership of approved asphalt mfg. facilitiesOwnership of approved asphalt mfg. facilities• Ownership of approved aggregates sourcesOwnership of approved aggregates sources
Search for collusion or other questionable Search for collusion or other questionable behaviorbehavior• Follow Info Tech methodologyFollow Info Tech methodology
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
23
FF
F
F
F
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
F
FF
F
F F
F
F
FFFF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
F
F
F
F
F
S
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SS
S
S
SS
SSS
S
SSS
SS
S
SS
S
SS
S
S
S
S
S
SSFFSPit and Asphalt FacilityPit Only Asphalt Facility Only
Present Day Vendor “A”Pits/DF’s and Asphalt Facilities
24
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
R
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W L
W
L
WW
W
L
L
W
W
L
LW
W
W L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
LL
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
WL
L
L
W
L
L
WLW
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
R
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
LW
WW
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
WL
W
L W
L
W
L
LW
W
LL W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
WW
L
L
L
L
L
L
R
R W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
WW
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
LL
W
L
W
Black – 2004
Green – 2003
Red – 2002
Blue - 2001Shelly & Sands: 3
Vendor “B” 2001-8/2004 Wins and Losses
25
3
5
3
2
1
2
4
2
3
5
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
21
5
4
2
6
3
2
2
2
1
4
1
21
1
1
1
5
1
2
3
2
33
3
2
4
2
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
3
1
13
3
2
2
2
2
1
5
1
2
4
1
3
5
3
21
3
3
2
2
2
21
2
3
1
3
5
34
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
4
1
3
Black – 2004
Green – 2003
Red – 2002
Blue - 2001
Vendor “B” 2001-8/2004 Wins with Number of
Bidders
26S-R
S
JV
S&S
K
G
O
S&S
S
S
S
O
S&S
S
S&S
S-RS
S
S
S
S&S
S
S&S
S
O
S&S
S&S
S
S
S
S
S&S
S&S
S&S
S
SS
S
S
S
O
S
S&S
S-R
S-R
S-R
S&S
B
S
S&S
S
S&S
S
S
S
S&S
S&S
J
S&S
S
S
S
J
S
S
S
S
S&S
SS&S
S
O-R
B-R
S
SS
S&S
O
J
S
S
S
SS
GG
S
S
J
S
S
J
S
B
JV
S
S
J
S
S
S
S
J
S
S&S
S
S
S&S
SS
S
Black – 2004
Green – 2003
Red – 2002
Blue - 2001
Single Bid Asphalt Contracts 2001-8/2004
B - contractor BG - contractor G J - contractor J K - contractor K S - contractor SS&S - contractor SSJV - joint ventureO - Other Vendors[R indicates a rejected bid]
27
33rdrd Leg Leg
Market AnalysisMarket Analysis• ODOT Cost Index: “Basket of Goods” ApproachODOT Cost Index: “Basket of Goods” Approach• Asphalt Bundling ProjectAsphalt Bundling Project• OTC Bid AnalysisOTC Bid Analysis
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
28
Asphalt Project Bundling Asphalt Project Bundling Scenario: A single owner gains market Scenario: A single owner gains market
control of Aggregate and/or Asphalt in a control of Aggregate and/or Asphalt in a specific areaspecific area
Strategy: promote more than a single bidStrategy: promote more than a single bid• Bundle (combine) similar Asphalt Projects in Bundle (combine) similar Asphalt Projects in
and around the market controlled areaand around the market controlled area1.1. Locate projects to bundle near competitive Locate projects to bundle near competitive
companies asphalt facilitiescompanies asphalt facilities2.2. Select projects in areas with different bidders Select projects in areas with different bidders 3.3. Cross boundaries i.e. district, countyCross boundaries i.e. district, county4.4. Increase size of project by $ value and/or quantity Increase size of project by $ value and/or quantity
for economies of scale for economies of scale
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
29
WYAVAN
UNISHE
PUT
PIC
PAU
M RW
M OT
M IA
M ERM AR
M AD
LOG
HAR
HAN
FRA
FAY
DEL
DEF
DAR
CLA
CHP
AUG
ALL
S&S
S
S
J
J
B B
B
B
S
S
S
S
S
S
J
J
J J
Cntl OH Asph
K
S&S
S
S
S&S
K
S&S
S
S
S
S
S
J
S
S S
S
G
G
G
G
AUG GRAND LAKE WEST BANK
HAR SR 67 2.58
MER SR 29 9.15
ALL SR 65/81/117 6.58
DAR SR 571 12.18
DAR SR 121 5.64
AUG SR 65 0.00AUG SR 219 7.64
DAR SR 49 25.33
HAR US 68/SR 235 19.23/19.26
HAR SR 31/67/117 0.00/0.00/1.58
ALL/VAN SR 66/190/697 11.07
MER SR 219 13.28
DAR SR 121 4.74
CHP SR 559 7.35
CHP US 36 0.00
CHP SR 29 31.37
LOG US 33 0.00
SHE SR 29 15.52SHE SR 29 17.21
AUG SR 29 3.87
DAR US 36 13.28
SHE SR 66 6.44
UNI SR 47 7.57
MER US 33 6.08
LOG SR 368 0.00
LOG SR 347 0.00
LOG SR 47 20.35
UNI SR 4 13.08
AUG SR 119 0.00
AUG SR 29 5.65
VAN/ALL SR 116/SR 117
DEL SR 750 0.00
MAD SR 38 22.81
MAD CR 7 6.15
Example of Asphalt Bundling
Group 5: 30 mi radFurthest Projects 22.5 mi apartEffective rad 22 mi from midpoint
Group 4: 30 mi radFurthest Projects 28.5 mi apartEffective rad 18.5 mi from midpoint
Group 3: 30 mi radFurthest Projects 32.75 mi apartEffective rad 25.5 mi from midpoint
Group 1: 30 mi radFurthest Projects 7.5 mi apartEffective rad 26 mi from midpoint
Group 2: 30 mi radFurthest Projects 27.80 mi apartEffective rad 17 mi from midpoint
Group 6: 30 mi radFurthest Projects 20.1 mi apartEffective rad 22 mi from midpoint
6
6
55
5
5
4
4
4
33
3
3
2
22
2
1
1
Enon
Duff
M M
Nat' l
S
Nat' l
SSS
S
J
Sm ith-J ohns on
B
Hans on Aggregates M idwes t, Inc .
M iRivM iRiv
B
K
Os borne
Nat' l
Nat' l
S
B
S
Nat' l
Nat' l
Prec Agg
S
M M
Suev er
G
B
S
Nat' l
J
Am er Ex
B
J
M M
S
Nat' l
M arble C
S
M M
Nat' lNat' l
Duff
Qual i ty
S
Ches terv i l le
J
B
B
M M
JJ
K
KK
S
Nat' l
Neer' s
S
Con-Ag
Poepplem an
S
Putnam
Suev er
Tuffc o
S
Nat' lNat' l
S
Nat' l
Suev er
Suev er
30
Ohio DOT Cost IndexOhio DOT Cost Index Primary Question:Primary Question:
• How will inflation and market fluctuations affect How will inflation and market fluctuations affect future construction costs?future construction costs?
Develop an Index (FY01-FY05):Develop an Index (FY01-FY05):• Used bid data in DSS for analysis to create Used bid data in DSS for analysis to create
Laspeyres type index like Consumer Price IndexLaspeyres type index like Consumer Price Index• Selected largest expenditure items for each Selected largest expenditure items for each
commoditycommodityo ““Basket of Goods” Approach Basket of Goods” Approach
• Determined composite index for each commodity Determined composite index for each commodity “Basket”“Basket”
• Developed an overall ODOT composite cost index Developed an overall ODOT composite cost index of all the individual commodity indices of all the individual commodity indices
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
31
Ohio DOT Cost Index GraphOhio DOT Cost Index Graph
123.6
105.9
111.7
103.0
100.0
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005
Inde
x V
alue
Aggregate Base Asphalt ConcreteDrainage Earthw ork
Maintenance of Traff ic Portland Cement Concrete PavementStructures including Maintenance Composite ODOT Construction Cost Index
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
32
Ohio DOT Cost Index (Table)Ohio DOT Cost Index (Table)
33
OOhiohio T Turnpikeurnpike C Commission - ommission -
OTCOTC OTC:OTC:
• The OTC separate from ODOT (similar The OTC separate from ODOT (similar operations)operations)
• The Commission manages 241-mile toll The Commission manages 241-mile toll road spanning Northern Ohioroad spanning Northern Ohio
Project:Project:• Analyze each bid item within each OTC Analyze each bid item within each OTC
3-lane widening project3-lane widening project• To include all projects, bids, and itemsTo include all projects, bids, and items
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
34
(Cont’d)(Cont’d) O Ohiohio T Turnpikeurnpike C Commission - ommission -
OTCOTC BART:BART:
• Current work:Current work:1.1. Develop an item master of all OTC related Develop an item master of all OTC related
items items 2.2. Align pertinent data for useful future analyses Align pertinent data for useful future analyses 3.3. Download all OTC data into the DSS databaseDownload all OTC data into the DSS database
• Future work:Future work:1.1. Line Item Profiles – Analysis of bidding Line Item Profiles – Analysis of bidding
patterns of projectspatterns of projects2.2. Vendor Competition – Analysis of competitors Vendor Competition – Analysis of competitors
who bid on projects or why bidders did notwho bid on projects or why bidders did not3.3. Also, analysis of vendor markets, market Also, analysis of vendor markets, market
shares and price analysisshares and price analysis
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
35
The Surface…The Surface…Uneven & Changing GroundUneven & Changing Ground
Factors that influence BART Factors that influence BART activitiesactivities
• Today’s newspaper articlesToday’s newspaper articles• Tomorrow’s newspaper articlesTomorrow’s newspaper articles• Collusion found in neighboring statesCollusion found in neighboring states• Perceived inflation increasesPerceived inflation increases• Inter-office collaborationsInter-office collaborations
o Data availabilityData availabilityo Requests for informationRequests for information
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005
36
Wrap UpWrap Up SummarySummary
DSS Database necessary starting pointDSS Database necessary starting point Multiple types of activities for Multiple types of activities for
sustainable teamsustainable team1.1. Collusion and Questionable Activity Collusion and Questionable Activity
DetectionDetection2.2. Bid History ProductsBid History Products3.3. Market AnalysisMarket Analysis
DiscussionDiscussion
BART- TEA/TUG Daytona November 2005