|
|
ACTT Workshop: Iowa/Illinois
I-74 Corridor Study - Bridging the Future
Appendix C (continued): Skill Set Recording Forms
Innovative Contracting/Financing
| Innovative Contracting/Financing Team |
|---|
| Facilitator: |
Gene Hoelker, FHWA |
| FHWA National Experts: |
Prabhat Diksit, FHWA |
Craig McDaniel, Washington DOT |
| Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, Local FHWA, or Local Experts: |
Jim Ent, FHWA
Kris Tobin, Illinois DOT
Jay Howell, Illinois DOT
Dan Long, Illinois DOT
Eric Johnsen, Iowa DOT
Krandel Jack, Iowa DOT |
Jim Rost, Iowa DOT
Bruce Kuehl, Iowa DOT
Dan Franklin, Iowa DOT
Kick Kautz, Iowa DOT
Fred Dean, Iowa DOT |
D-B
| Idea (Short Name) |
Idea (Detailed Description) |
Implementation Details (Barriers, Skill Set Coordination, etc.) |
| If financing wasn't an issue |
- Consider options for funding construction. D-B provides more options; the contractor has more latitude; he/she chooses construction type; etc. More cooperative.
|
- Need legislation to allow D-B (project specific-IA).
- Contractors have more resources available, i.e., workforce.
- How involved the States want to be is a factor; too much involvement can inhibit progress.
- Cost is not the main driver.
- Project delivery time is faster; in some cases D-B can cut costs.
|
| Alliance contracting |
- Consolidate environmental and ROW contracts.
|
- Create a team; set a target price with a fee on top of that; provide an incentive to stay under the set price.
- If you use the incentive to fix things with, you lose control.
- There's not a lot of public involvement; changes are sensitive under D-B.
- The development process is 35 percent complete, the footprint is set and the corridor limits are established.
- If you go outside the footprint, it is the contractor's responsibility.
|
| D-B |
- Transfers risk, provides overall help. While it doesn't necessarily save money or give better quality, it does shorten the project delivery timeframe.
|
- Cost effective: award is based not only on price.
- There is less disruption of traffic.
- Can provide merit points on aesthetics.
- Strong public involvement is a challenge.
- The contractor can make decisions with responsibility for risks.
- The ability to get this project done quicker is there, but the funding is not: we don't have funding currently available, so D-B is a theoretical concept.
- To the Illinois abutment would be the limit of the D-B.
- If Iowa were to get legislative approval, you could go incrementally down the line based on partnering between the States.
- Illinois would likely be in favor of this.
|
| D-B: operate and maintain without charging tolls |
|
- Another party would build but would expect payback through bonds or State appropriations; more needs than money; public/private cooperation.
|
| Shifting risk |
|
- Shift risk to the contractor as far as staging, public involvement, etc.; currently rigid in approach.
|
| Working with local agencies (D-B) |
|
- Require contractors to deal with the local agencies.
- Once contract is set, it can't be changed: the footprint is set.
- Beyond the footprint is the contractor's responsibility to negotiate.
|
| Disadvantages to D-B |
|
- State gives up control.
- States must have the money up front.
- Local contractors may feel a disadvantage in getting the work.
- Public involvement is more challenging.
- There is concern that D-B is a violation of the Brooks Act (qualification versus low bid).
|
| State DOTs and D-B |
|
- Need to look at the RFQ/RFP process.
- The qualifications set forth various standards.
- must set forth ahead of time how you're going to award the contract based on the proposals.
- standard procedures must be used.
- Plug what you value into the RFP.
|
| Proposed ideas: D-B |
|
- Bidders would receive a stipend, and we would own their ideas to give to the successful bidder.
|
Staging/Packaging
| Idea (Short Name) |
Idea (Detailed Description) |
Implementation Details (Barriers, Skill Set Coordination, etc.) |
| Staging |
|
- Must be a corridor-level effort.
- The media and the public are interested in the river crossing.
- Public involvement is focused on the river bridge to the detriment of the rest of the corridor.
- Davenport is focused on the 53rd Street exit.
- Must build a good coalition with parties on both sides of the river.
|
| Independent utility projects |
|
- Need to get money earmarked for these pieces.
- Be sure to include public involvement so that the public understands this is a funding issue; slowly integrate it into the bridge.
|
| Bridge condition |
- Bridge condition is not driver for replacement.
|
- Both bridges are similar; structural condition is not driving cost; a functional aspect is driving the project.
- This is an operational issue: maintenance on the bridges (extended maintenance) is costly.
|
| Secondary impacts |
|
|
Financing
| Idea (Short Name) |
Idea (Detailed Description) |
Implementation Details (Barriers, Skill Set Coordination, etc.) |
| Earmarked money |
- This money is for preliminary engineering and final design.
|
- The bulk of the money has some ties to the structure itself.
- There is a mix of funding (TSP, corridor funds, structures dollars), but it is still a fraction of what is needed.
- Public officials are earmarking specifically for the Mississippi River crossing.
|
| 50/50 cost structure and approach |
- Coordinate between the States.
|
- States are in the process of establishing boundaries due to approaches.
|
| Regulated bonding |
- The size of the contract is an issue.
|
- Typically there are not multi-million-dollar contracts in Iowa.
- This is comparable to other States.
- Iowa/Illinois contracts are smaller.
- Keeping it smaller will attract more bidders.
- The paradigm for Iowa is smaller contracts: breaking up contract would be better for Iowa but may not be the best for the Quad cities.
- If the funding is not there, you can't offer one large contract anyway.
- Larger contracts are more common in Illinois.
|
| Bonds |
- Consider Garvee bonds, bonds issued on revenue, gas taxes, etc.
|
- Legislative approval and voting of the people are issues.
- Could bond against your own gas tax.
- It's more difficult to sell bonding than tolling because it is not a State-wide issue.
- Bonding for I-80 border to border would be easier to sell.
- You would have to bond for a statewide improvement.
|
| Financing |
- Need to determine if we can get the money and how much we can spend.
|
- Time, quality and dollars are issues, as is the priority of projects.
|
| Bonding with insurance |
|
- Provides for faster design and completion. Would need to establish a toll authority to make decisions.
|
| Tax increase and tolling on local community |
- Consider for the I-74 corridor/east bridge.
|
- Is there a strategy to issue the bond and shadow toll?
- Depending on government structure, the two governments would need to work together and package the two bridges together.
- From a capital market point of view, this would be more profitable.
- The turnpike authority would need to be a sub-organization of the DOTs; a local taxing authority was tried in the past.
|
| Local funding |
|
- Locals have been made aware that money is needed to fund this project; they've been going after earmarked funds.
- Could leave it up to the locals to decide if revenues can be generated for I-74; tolling would be a no-revenue option.
- Could take a vote to the locals as to when they want the bridge up.
|
| Tax increment financing |
|
- Use additional revenue coming from specific areas.
|
| Dedicated increment of fuel tax each year |
|
- Use specific taxes for specific projects.
|
Tolling
| Idea (Short Name) |
Idea (Detailed Description) |
Implementation Details (Barriers, Skill Set Coordination, etc.) |
| Keeping contracts local |
|
- Larger contractors would likely sub out to local contractors, keeping the work local.
|
| Duration |
|
- Note that the river bridge is less tied to traffic; the approach is more tied to traffic.
- Makes for more complex duration and staging.
|
| Corridor |
|
|
| Optional combination |
- Offer all the separate contracts and then one large single contract.
|
- Consider combining the contracts into one contract - this hasn't been discussed.
- Staging and constructability are issues; traffic control would need to be coordinated.
- Past experience shows that putting contracts together increases the price but improves the schedule.
- Iowa contractors are more craft-orientated.
- There have been problems getting bidders in the Quad Cities area for small contracts.
- Allow contractors to bid the whole project or bid small components of the project; makes the competition better and the bidding lower.
|
| Getting bidders |
- Consider a larger contract/one complete contract.
|
- Would attract national bidders; more expeditious.
|
| SEP 14/15 |
|
- Consider 14-contract methods, 15 financing.
|
| Size of contracts |
|
- $300 million might be $700 million.
- Start with a 40 percent contingency, which drops through more engineering information.
|
| Illinois/Iowa edge of river |
|
- This is not intended to be buildable as a separate contract.
- Take the approach out from the bridge structure and bid it separately.
- Innovative contracting should be part of the initial plan and not be left to the end.
|
| Interchanges north and south of bridge |
|
- Combine to one contract to facilitate coordination and scheduling.
- There would be one contractor to answer to the public rather than two contractors deflecting heat back and forth.
|
Financing Options
| Idea (Short Name) |
Idea (Detailed Description) |
Implementation Details (Barriers, Skill Set Coordination, etc.) |
| Cash reimbursement option |
- This is traditional law from the two State legislatures.
|
- The funds would be released in increments.
- This is a viable option for Iowa and Illinois (in Illinois, would have to work way up the priority list).
|
| Tolling the bridge portion |
- Start now on the current bridge or later on the new bridge.
|
- The Iowa DOT has the authority to toll structures:
- need to define the structure span, abutment to abutment, approach to approach
- negotiations can be made and limits revised.
- IDOT also has this ability.
- The remainder of the corridor could be funded with appropriations.
- Implement a small toll on the current bridge, committing to upgrade with a future bridge.
- If you put a toll on the bridge now, you give up the authority to have a toll authority in the future.
- Also, if you choose the toll option, it kills local funding options for sales and gas taxes.
- If the legislature establishes the toll, a multi-State authority can be achieved.
- There could be a backlash from reinstating toll bridges after doing away with them.
|
| Toll bridge privatization |
|
- Bridge would be owned and tolled privately.
- A privately-owned, operated and financed facility (either a 99-year lease or an outright purchase) tends to operate more efficiently, and there's a guaranteed revenue stream.
|
| Sales taxes, tax increment financing |
- Utilize a tax increment plus annual appropriations.
|
- This would require a State/local jurisdiction partnership and a system approach.
- Consider a partnership with two bridges (exclude the 67 bridge).
|
| Bonding against gas taxes, Federal grants statewide |
|
- Bond would be based on State revenue based on gas taxes, Garvee, TIF, Federal monies, etc.
|
| Earmarks |
|
- How much more can we get from earmarks?
- Use the average of past earmarks for future planning.
|
Miscellaneous Topics
| Idea (Short Name) |
Idea (Detailed Description) |
Implementation Details (Barriers, Skill Set Coordination, etc.) |
| Iowa DOT 15 years from now |
|
- This is not a "top five" project for the Illinois DOT.
- The Iowa DOT also has other Interstate projects that rank higher than this project.
- Would need a billion dollars to fund this project.
- Other projects of this magnitude have been done without tolls, bonds, etc.
|
| Riverfront development impacts |
|
|
| Materials for bridge |
|
- There would be significant savings from not constructing a steel bridge; there's still room for innovation.
|
| ROW |
|
- Final design is not needed to get ROW plats; ROW would be working concurrently with final design.
- Historically Federal aid has not been used for ROW, but this has changed recently with earmarked monies.
|
| Options for pre-bid meetings |
|
|
| Economic influences/safety drivers |
|
|
| Construction manager |
|
- Do the design and hire the contractors; the manager has incentives to maintain a certain fee.
|
| International financing |
|
- International bridges are mostly privately owned and maintained.
|
| Purpose and need |
|
- Discuss the need to improve alternative routes, the current level of service, future development and detour options.
|
| Roadway construction first |
|
- It's harder to justify money for bridge; better off to construct the bridge first.
|
| Schedule |
|
- Determine how funding affects the timeline.
|
| Expediting contracts |
|
- Iowa does not have a lot of experience with A-plus-B contracts.
- Weekend closure may work.
- Consider a hyper-fix (60-90 days, an alignment tie-in between old and new).
- Need modification to NEPA documents, options to bring to a public meeting.
- Staging traffic off of the mainline would expedite construction; from legality of the NEPA document, staging is not an issue.
- The requirement to keep the bridge open during the project has been set (set prior to the project).
|
| Minimizing influence on traffic |
|
- Designate a corridor traffic manager to work between the two States.
- It is critical to project success that this is viewed as one project being done by one team.
|
| Project management office |
- Designate an I-74 project engineer with access to people at all levels, he/she would coordinate all corridor activities with the executive team.
|
- Utilize a project web page and phone line.
- Hire a PR firm to staff the office and communicate with residents and media.
- One person needs to be accountable for the entire project; need for both States to be involved and report to the executive committee.
- The committee should consist of members from both States.
|
| Contracting |
- Let several small contracts with the option to tie them together into one contract.
|
|
|
- Bid substructure and superstructure separately.
|
- Build for the long-term with future expansion possibilities.
|
|
- Include long-term maintenance in the contract.
|
- This includes pavement maintenance, bridge maintenance and snow removal.
- Use warranties.
- Remember that construction funds cannot be used for maintenance contracts (not currently).
|
| A-plus-B |
|
|
| Performance management specs |
|
|
| Safety incentives |
|
- Look at contractor's operations in disrupting traffic through performance specifications.
- If the accident rate goes down, the public benefits.
- Focus the contractor's thinking on safety.
- Side road traffic should not be included, as it's more variable; focus on the mainline only or the entire project.
|
| Environmental Incentives |
|
- Address erosion, water quality, etc.
|
| No excuse bonus |
|
- Federal aid cannot be used.
- The bonus is awarded if the contractor can complete the project within the specified timeframe.
- Make it an incentive/disincentive, and use liquidated damages.
|
| CPM scheduling |
|
- Update monthly and implement.
|
| Quality-driven performance-based specifications |
|
|
| Design alternatives |
|
|
| Prequalifications |
|
- All contractors are prequalified to bid on Iowa DOT projects.
- Iowa uses an extended advertising period for larger jobs with no mandatory pre-bid meetings.
- Select pre-bid meetings are not mandatory.
- The Iowa DOT allows confidential bidding and holds constructability meetings.
- Talk to AGC and advertise.
- Anything discussed is distributed to all contractors.
|
| Materials acceptance |
|
- Use QA/QC specs for asphalt, structural concrete, embankments.
|
| Dispute resolution process/escalation procedures |
|
- A way to escalate conflict on projects (partnering) has been established but has not used lately.
- Need to have a mechanism in place to keep issues from festering and get them resolved in a timely manner.
- Put this in the contract using timing as an issue.
|
| Multi-parameter bidding |
|
- Consider A-plus-B, providing pay award to enhancements for quality; A-plus-B-C (C being a warranty).
|
| Bridge construction |
|
- Iowa DOT likes to be able to replace decking;
- looking at different material options (steel, concrete, concrete filled steel).
- considering expandable shoulders.
|
|
Events
Contact
Chris Schneider
Office of Asset Management
202-493-0551
E-mail Chris
Joe Huerta
Resource Center (Baltimore)
410-962-2298
E-mail Joe
|
