Delivering on Maryland’s TRANSPORTATION...
Transcript of Delivering on Maryland’s TRANSPORTATION...
February, 2014
Delivering on Maryland’s
TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT Alternative Project Delivery: SHA’s Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) Pilot Jeffrey T. Folden, PE Maryland State Highway Administration
February, 2014
February, 2014
Project Delivery Method
One Size Does not
Fit All…
February, 2014
Project Delivery Method
Definition The process to design and construct the project
Types • Design-Bid-Build (DBB) • Design-Build (DB) • Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) • Public Private Partnerships (P3) • Construction Management at Risk (CMAR)
February, 2014
Construction Management at Risk
Definition A project delivery method where the agency utilizes a two-phase construction contract with a General Contractor to:
1) Provide Preconstruction Services, which may include, but are not limited to, constructability analysis, value analysis, scheduling, site assessments, and cost estimating;
2) Construct the project based on final design plans (or design packages) based upon an agreed Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
February, 2014
Construction Management at Risk
Authority • State – Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)
21.05.10
• Federal – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) – Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC)
February, 2014
Construction Management at Risk
Reasons for Choosing CMAR • Shorten Project Delivery
• Project Complexity
• Contractor Input During Design
• High Number of Potential Risks/Risk Allocation
• Scope Flexibility/Maximizing Dollars
• Cost Analysis of Multiple Design Options
• Informed Owner Decision Making
February, 2014
7
Shortening Project Delivery
Design-Bid-Build
(DBB)
CMAR
Design-Build
(DB)
Preliminary Design
Detailed/Final Design
Bid Construction
Preliminary Design
Design-Build
Procurement
Detailed/Final Design
Construction
Preliminary Design
CMAR Procurement
Detailed/Final Design
Construction
February, 2014
Risk Allocation
Contractor
Owner
DBB DB CMAR
RIS
K
February, 2014
Construction Management at Risk
Expectations • Meet Project Goals
• Fair Market Price
• At or Below Proposed Price
• Improved Schedule
• Fewer Change Orders
February, 2014
Construction Management at Risk
Benefits • Opportunity to bring on Contractor during design phase
to work as an integrated team to deliver most efficient and cost effective design
• Promotes innovation and collaboration/partnering
• Owner maintains the decision making authority
• Greater cost certainty through GMP and reduction in change orders
• Still allows phased construction similar to Design-Build
• Risk Identification and Management during design
• Owner gets upfront benefit from Value Analysis
February, 2014
Construction Management at Risk
Potential Risks • Transparency – Technical Qualifications and
Approach are Main Elements for Selection
• Cost Validation – “Negotiated” vs. Bid
• Culture – New Process for All (SHA, Consultants, Contractor, Regulatory Agencies, Etc.)
• Risk – Limited Historical Usage for Heavy Highway Construction
February, 2014
Construction Management at Risk
Procurement – COMAR 21.05.10.03
CMAR contracts shall be procured using the Competitive Sealed Proposals Procurement Method as defined in COMAR 21.05.03.
February, 2014
CMAR Procurement
MD 24 Pilot Project • Potential Project Identified – January 2013 • Approved for CMAR – March 2013 • Development of CMAR procurement process/documents – April
2013 – August 2013 • Procurement Schedule
• Industry Informational Meeting Held – July 18, 2013 • Issued Request for Proposals – August 20, 2013 • Technical and Price Proposals Submitted – October 2,
2013 • Notification of Selection – October 23, 2013 • Award – November 22, 2013 • Notice to Proceed – December 23, 2013
February, 2014
CMAR Procurement
MD 24 Pilot Project • One Step Procurement Process
• Request for Proposals (RFP)
• Technical Proposal
• Project Management Team/Capability of Proposer
• Project Approach
• Legal/Financial
• Price Proposal
• Preconstruction Fee (Lump Sum Price)
• Construction cost for only specific items identified
February, 2014
CMAR Procurement
MD 24 Pilot Project • Separate Technical Proposal and Price Proposal
Evaluations
• Adjectival Rating Process
• Best-Value Process – Most Advantageous to State considering both technical factors and price
• Technical Proposal was significantly more important than the Price Proposal.
• Project Award and Notice to Proceed – Design Phase
February, 2014
MD 24 – Section A & Section G
Study in 2003
identified 7
distinct segments
of varying slope
failure. Section A
& Section G were
highest priorities.
February, 2014
MD 24 – Section A & Section G Purpose and Need Improve safety along MD 24 and address roadside safety concerns associated with eroding slopes
Project Objectives • Avoidance and Minimization of impacts to Deer
Creek • Protecting historical, cultural, and endangered
species • Limit disturbance to or enhance rock features
February, 2014
MD 24 – Section A & Section G
February, 2014
MD 24 – Section A & Section G Alternates • Section A – Selected Alternate
• Maintain existing roadway alignment and construct imbricated stone walls
• Section G – Options
• Maintain existing roadway alignment w/ retaining walls
• Shift roadway alignment w/ and w/o retaining walls
February, 2014
MD 24 – Section A & Section G Design Challenges • Stream diversion and dewatering for
construction area. • Temporary stream diversion
requirements/methods • Shortest duration • Height of system • Stability
• Mussel survey and translocation period
February, 2014
CMAR Design Phase
Project Team • Owner – SHA
• Engineer under Contract with Owner – Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson (JMT)
• Contractor under separate Contract with owner – Corman Construction
• Independent Cost Estimator (ICE) – Infrastructure Technologies (IT)
February, 2014
CMAR Design Phase – Section A
Owner, Designer, and Contractor Collaboration • Project Kick-Off Meeting/Partnering
• Working Team Meetings – Weekly or Bi-Weekly
• Cost Model Development w/ ICE
February, 2014
CMAR Design Phase – Section A
Project Kick-Off/Partnering • Kick-Off Meeting
• Owner, Engineer, Contractor, ICE • All SHA Offices/Divisions • Environmental Agencies (DNR, MDE, USACOE,
USFWS, EPA) • Partnering
• Partnering Keys to Success/Ground Rules • Issue Resolution Process • Action Items
February, 2014
CMAR Design Phase – Section A
Working Team Meetings
• Discuss Issues Identified and Work Through Solutions
• “Over-the-Shoulder” Reviews
• Key Players Involved
February, 2014
CMAR Design Phase – Section A
Cost Model Development w/ ICE • Develop Cost Model for Project
• Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC)
• Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
• Elements of Cost Model
• Profit and Indirect Overhead Percentage
• Equipment Types and Rates
• Material Sources
• Subcontractor Items of Work
• Risk Agreement and Assignment
• Schedule
February, 2014
CMAR Design Phase – Section A
Cost Model Development w/ ICE • OPCC
• To be submitted at 65% and 90% Design Completion
• Blind Estimate Comparison – ICE is not Revealed
• Report of Items Outside of Tolerance (>10%)
• Reconciliation Meeting to discuss differences in bidding assumptions
February, 2014
CMAR Design Phase – Section A
Once Design is Complete
• Contract documents have been developed collaboratively by team
• Follow typical procedures • DBE goals established for construction
• 2008 Standard Specifications and current SP/SPIs
• GMP - Contractor and ICE will independently price project
February, 2014
CMAR Bidding Phase – Section A
Once GMP is Submitted
• Owner will see both Contractor and ICE prices
• Price Reconciliation Meetings, as needed
• Up to 3 GMP Submittals allowed
• Accept GMP and Award Contract
• Terminate Contract and Bid Project as DBB
February, 2014
CMAR Bidding Phase – Section A
Schedule
• OPCC Submittals – February and March 2014
• Issue Contract Documents – April 2014 • GMP Submittals – 1st Submittal in May
2014 • Pending approved GMP – NTP in July
2014 • Construction Completion Proposed Nov.
2014
February, 2014
CMAR Future
Opportunities • SHA Project Delivery Selection Process –
developing structured approach to determine most appropriate delivery method
• Factors to consider • Delivery Schedule • Project Complexity & Innovation • Level of Design • Cost • Initial Risk Assessment • Industry Interest & Capacity
February, 2014
CMAR Future
Considerations
• Procurement Process – 2 step vs. 1 step
• Price Proposal
• Preconstruction Fee
• CMAR Management Fee (Percentage)
• Specific Bid Items
February, 2014
CMAR Future
Potential Obstacles
• Level of Design + Construction Funding
• Bring on Contractor pre-30% - Schedule may be dynamic
February, 2014
Questions?
Remember…
One Size Does Not
Fit All…