| Staging. |
- Crosstown Commons is charged to keep traffic flowing. Keep same number of lanes but will slow down due to distractions. Commons lends itself to weaving and filling in retaining wall and staging south side. A lot of dancing of traffic back and forth with the staging of the project. North end staging same layout. Stage 0 will reconstruct overpass bridges first. Four main bridges. Two interchanges. We looked at this in staging. We looked at two adjacent bridges closed at one time. Important that the north end has these four bridges constructed first.
|
- Staging is constrained by funding and compacts the schedule. Stage 0 early 2006. Those two bridges need to be let early. Letting 2005 based on schedule. Sewer work needs to be done early as well. If we don't get those two bridges early it may push us to 2010. Metal bridges take 8 months to prep. Steel is an issue.
|
| Two contracts. |
- 10 to 25 million as early letting. The big letting in April won't hurt us. Right now there is no funding for that stage 0. Completed design is late November 2005 letting. The more money for that first stage we can help it out.
|
- Get funding for stage 0 and contain the sewer work in the same piece. If we don't get the funding, it may push it back.
|
| Gaining time. |
- Having money available in 2006 and Stage 0.
|
- Two bridges can go first. If you open up too much with a shortened construction season, we may only be able to do those two bridges in that year. You don't want to open up too much.
|
| Precasting. |
- Two lanes wide. 40 feet wide.
|
|
| Optimistic schedule. |
- What is your amount of time needed for this?
|
- Intent is to have this go to FY 07. Why not let it earlier and do some winter construction?
|
| How fast? |
- Bridge design is not the limiting factor.
|
- We need to have the design and profile to be the right one.
|
| Moving up early date. |
|
- May not gain much for a November letting. Right in the middle of winter but needs bypasses for the bridge to be built.
|
| Closing Crosstown. |
- Will it accelerate the project?
|
- What if we only do it for one season?
|
| Controlling operation. |
|
- 40 ft cannot be done onsite and need to be hauled in.
|
| Size of contract. |
- D/B. They need to joint venture with large firms. Have the AGC considered it to fitting it into their program.
|
|
| How long will it take to get an RFP? |
- What do we gain by D/B in terms of time?
|
- Money may not be there for the project to move up.
|
| Funding. |
- We can't appropriate funds until July 1, 2006.
|
- Money is not available until 2007 for the other projects that are taking that money right now.
|
| Funding for four fiscal years. |
|
- Have to show it as part of our program.
|
| Issues with acceleration. |
- How does it fit with cash flow?
|
- What is the cash flow analysis? No work done finding out what the maximum payment curve will be.
|
| Funding all at once. |
- Move it up as early as you can.
|
- Four contracts on Wakota can be difficult. We would like to see the one contract together.
|
| One contract vs. two. |
- Goal is to use state personnel.
|
- Makes it difficult if you get two different contracts.
|
| Goal to minimize personnel. |
- Run both at some time is an issue, but if it is done early then it may be out of the way.
|
- Similar to moving utilities out of the way first. This may be a good option.
|
| Utilities. |
- City sewer, water, and fiber. In terms of utilities and relocation, there does not seem to be a big problem. The City of Bloomington will be involved as well.
|
|
| Two segment projects. |
- Segment One south of 494. This is one project larger than originally anticipated.
|
|
| Lots of projects vs. one. |
- Marquette contracts 15 and got twiddled down to four and small contracts.
|
- It was spilt up into legs. One contract would have been much easier.
|
| Larger is better. |
- Maximizes the contractor's ability to innovate as well. Not have to worry about the other guy controlling your work.
|
|
| Moving equipment. |
- Segmental bridges can be more critical than the other. More flexibility and space can minimize the closure.
|
|
| Looks of the final roadway. |
- Not flexible. 8-week closures may be allowed. Up to 12 weeks may help get it done faster.
|
- Public stopped the projects due to closures. Right now we still need two projects.
|
| Not good D/B. |
|
|
| Stipend to build the job. |
- Provide stipend for staging.
|
|
| Is this contractible? |
|
|
| Mandate staging in this stage. |
- Need to demonstrate that the project can be built. Mn/DOT need to say it is safe. We tend to layout staging: more complex, less risk.
|
- Contractor may have a better idea.
|
| Incentive. |
- Better way to stage it than Mn/DOT and has an incentive better than what Mn/DOT wants done.
|
|
| A+B. |
- We need to provide incentive for staging this way. Pass risk off to the contractor. Money is the only incentive.
|
- Need to structure the contract well.
|
| Priority system created. |
- Other routes may be attractive to contractors.
|
- Study the criteria for time of closures.
|
| Transit. |
- Can a shoulder be provided for buses?
|
- Can you maintain the buses? Can that create an incentive for maintain the bus traffic on the shoulder?
|
| Closures rental. |
- Max number of days it can be closed. Matrix of closures and not have multiple closures.
|
- Build a bypass to save days.
|
| Help to win the job in the bid? |
|
|
| Mainline closure rental. |
- Close for a week and get complex work done
|
- Setting segments in short durations to set beams.
|
| Police slowdown. |
|
- Inform public and tell people to avoid it.
|
| Change driving patterns by information. |
|
|
| Total closures. |
- 12 weekends on 494. What are the total closures for this project if we decide to allow it? Can we set multiple bridges?
|
- Rental will make the contractor decide to do it correctly.
|
| More than 8 weeks. |
- Damages will follow for more time. Incentive for less.
|
|
| A+B. |
- Helps contractors win the job vs. incentive/dis.
|
- Will it increase the price to a point of not being affordable?
|
| User costs. |
- What is the user cost for the roadway?
|
|
| Cap incentives. |
- Worst case dollars. Incentive is meant to be part of his risk. He is banking on those dollars.
|
|
| Contingency. |
- $208 million... What is the final estimate? We need to identify that contingency.
|
- We all agree upfront, and we need to find the money in the end.
|
| Leaving out staging plan. |
- Best value for traditional project?
|
- Stipend for the project can be paid.
|
| A+B 200m. |
- Has that been done before?
|
|
| Staging. |
- Have to do the staging and see if this is constructible.
|
- We need to see if we have a contracting process to build the project.
|
| Info staging document. |
- Develop their own and only having the staging as an info plan.
|
- Separate the staging plan.
|
| Saving effort. |
- Reduce the plans and eliminate the staging.
|
- Cost of staging plan vs. stipend costs.
|
| Bid vs. build documents. |
- Different animal for different needs.
|
- What is the level of documentation that the contactor needs to provide to the DOT?
|
| Cost creating documents. |
- Need to set up partnering at the beginning. Create number of sheets. Satisfy expectations.
|
- What we say in our D/B? One team set up complete traffic control. All developed a cost. The more detail they created, the better they were scored.
|
| D/B/B. |
- Staging plan will be included with the proposal. That would go out now.
|
|
| D/B at 95 percent |
- As long it is not complete, the statute can allow us to use the best value method.
|
- Use parts of the design project even it is not the D/B project.
|
| Wall and bridge types should not be as prescriptive. |
- Prescribing wall types may not be the best thing to do.
|
- Value engineering. Bridge may increase the amount of funds given to value engineering to stimulate the way we build our bridges.
|
| What is the value basis of one construction stage over another? |
- Can we reduce closers and save time? Can this come out in a construction plan? If the contractor puts the whole staging plan in advance? Adds risk to the contract. But, we save all that upfront work.
|
- We need the staging to convince Minneapolis and Richfield.
|
| Better staging. |
- How do we measure that? User cost--does it save time.
|
- Is it important enough for us to have high quality and/or should we go to the old way?
|
| Benchmark 4 years. |
- Everything is based on how we can do this faster. Cost of 5 vs. 4 years. Social cost, safety, but what is the money saved on $'s. Are we convinced?
|
- Selling the cost to the Commissioner may be the way to get the money.
|
| Minimizing closures is the only one we can affect. |
- Are we correct in modifying the project goals? What elements of D/B can we use?
|
|
| Minimize traffic impacts. |
- Goal for the project. Legislation is determined by the legislature. The reason why the project is stopped.
|
|
| Old PR killed the project. |
- We are gun-shy with talking about the project and talking to the paper. They can give a spin that we don't want. But need to spin this the other way.
|
|
| Lump sum for the traffic control. |
- This is what we are willing to pay--can you do it for cheaper? Enough description--can we get the contractor? Would we get a bid?
|
- We were locked into the schedule of values. We have $225 million for this price.
|
| Reverse bidding. |
- What can we get for $208 million?
|
|
| 2 months for 212. |
- 4 months--design and construction can be done, but it is a huge effort to do that.
|
|
| Cost and pricing for bypasses. |
- How can we optimize that? Give honest closure times, and we will get a better price. We assume 10 days of closure. You have to bid a cost to those days.
|
- 4-year plan needs to be shared and risk managed.
|
| Time in traffic. |
- Mn/DOT needs to learn what the contractor wants to do. By sharing information we are educating everyone in the project.
|
- Speculation time is eliminated.
|
| Working side-by-side. |
- Need to find a way to incorporate that in this project.
|
- Hours put into design scrutiny can reduce downtime.
|
| Minneapolis. |
- They hold Mn/DOT accountable for the information provided. The PR firm addresses complaints, and we have a better way of doing PR. We need to capture that on this project.
|
|
| How can we get this done as fast as we can? |
- Mn/DOT gets this done. Acceleration is what this will cost us. We need to find a balance for it.
|
- Building fast--what are the issues we can minimize?
|
| Cost savings. |
- No physical cost savings occurs, it is a soft cost and is to the traveling public. Here is an opportunity to save user costs.
|
|
| Goal 2009. |
|
|
| Steel orders will take lead time. |
|
|
| Precast bridges. |
- Are the beams too deep for the sections that they could be utilized? Is steel the only option?
|
|
| Minneapolis. |
- They did not want the program to be D/B because of the uncertainty.
|
|
| Is there flexibility in how we build the project? |
- Because the design is done, but the way it is constructed is the main flexible thing.
|
|
| If money showed up next year. |
- The main reason to use D/B is to accelerate the money.
|
- We need this to capture the federal dollars, and this is the way to do it.
|
| Go with the staff. |
- Need to go when politics allow you to go and no-go on projects
|
- Admin changes can kill a project.
|
| Legislature changes in the boundaries. |
- Helps us to move it up ahead.
|
|
| State is learning how to pull the trigger. |
- 30,50,75,95 percent done design. Create a D/B project when the time is right to get a job done, because funding is now available. The State needs to develop a method and system for doing that.
|
|
| EIS. |
- Are they trying to kill these projects? Geometrics wants it to transit coordinated. Wanted LRT. We will settle for BRT and a commitment in dollars. We need to keep this as a commitment to the admin that supported it.
|
|
| Hot lanes. |
- Can you run the infrastructure before hand?
|
- Is this something that can be done later?
|
| Open up Crosstown. |
- You need to open up the points north
|
|
| City wants to fix the whole system at once. |
- We need to communicate that to the City that this is a sectional approach that needs time and funding to be implemented.
|
|
| Construction Manager at Risk. |
- Can some of these other innovative types benefit the overall project? Completely different than what we currently do.
|
|
| Funding. |
- We are continually not funded up to 100 percent. And our resources are retiring. Contract Administration is used to supplement our larger projects. On D/B, we seem to put our key people out there and fill them in with consultants.
|
- The option is to give all the small projects to consultants. It is difficult to put our own people to them.
|
| Staffing. |
- Time period of 4 years can create a turn around in staffing. If we were to contract out some of the construction, do we lean more to the front line or supplement our project with the people?
|
- Plug names into the holes using an org chart.
|
| Material testing. |
- Hiring out certified labs. Use Mn/DOT staff for the leaders of the staff for quality control.
|
- TTI had suggestion. Set up testing facility. D/B would delegate more to the contractor on the job. Other mega jobs, set up a change management team.
|
| Change management team. |
- Separate team that would do the job of Central Office to handle changes and produce results sooner.
|
- If this is a design-build job, then it might make sense.
|
| Staging operations. |
- CPM is the only way you are only going to be able to find out time.
|
- Helps to implement incentives and disincentives.
|
| Invoice pricing. |
- Percent of work complete is paid for. It is determined based on the CPM.
|
- We hire outside experts to help us do that.
|
| Task order consultant. |
- The consultant is paid on certain projects for 2 to 3 weeks at a time. This may be a good idea, but might not be practical.
|
- Might not be able to be done because of the current staffing rules to the contracts.
|
| Staffing org chart. |
|
|
| Materials testing. |
- To supplement testing, bring in a consultant like a testing company to run more test during paving and pouring.
|
|
| Contractor staking. |
- Contractor's responsibility--will work better for it.
|
- Number of stakes goes down.
|
| Field fitting. |
- Contractor, inspector, and surveyor will be figuring it out together.
|
|
| QA/QC. |
- Contractor has more responsibility in our D/B projects. The idea is the contractor controls their process efficiently. We can then check the project and we don't find anything wrong. But at the end it is not what we want. Now what? We are stuck with it and might get some money back. It all comes down to knowing that we have good contractors out there. We want a contractor to put the extra money and time into it. A big contractor will bring in the quality with the bond. The amount of testing is not the issue. You have to know you have a contractor that wants quality in the process. Statistical analysis and numbers may only give us the current quality.
|
- QC/QA is something Virginia DOT does not want to get into it. 95 percent meets the spec. But the 5 percent that does not meet spec-it obviously will be representative of the bad pieces of the project. We still need non-random samples and to do the mathematical random samples as well.
|
| Compliance auditing. |
- Will give you a threshold across the board. Better place for lower-level people. Something we can sign off and be comfortable with.
|
- Bringing up the skill level of the contractor is something we need to utilize.
|
| Oversight. |
- How many tests do we run? Make sure the testing is fair.
|
|
| Retired DOT. |
- Working for the contractor will be attractive for both sides. Experience and contractor run QC.
|
|
| Goal to get the job done in less than 4 years. |
- Huge PR effort. Night work. Vibration. Special permits to work at night and on weekends in Minneapolis.
|
|
| Do we not need to follow the City ordinances? |
- Legally no, but we need to continue to solidify the relationships with the city.
|
- Certain cities we have worn out the welcome and the contractors may get the permits better than the DOT. How can we use the contractors to go into the permit?
|
| What to put in contract? |
- Night work. Will have to get the permit to do night work. Not a good idea because of the uncertainty.
|
|
| Build noise wall as first order of work. |
- We are going to do innovative contracting. What can we do to make this easier?
|
|
| Visual barriers. |
- Screen it off rather than leaving it open.
|
- Temporary barriers buy you time.
|
| Trucks on side city streets. |
- Paving driveways and some trees may make home owners happy and take care of things.
|
- Some give-and-take will be part of the solution.
|
| Haul road. |
- If it is less than 9 ton, then we may have problems.
|
- We can't do it in the Twin Cities.
|
| Contractor working for city at the same time. |
|
|
| Pre-purchasing. |
- Steel pricing may warrant buying up front.
|
|
| Scrap price is still high. |
- Index and scrap price for steel do not line up well.
|
|
| Preconstruction conferences. |
- Not mandatory, but they are usually all there.
|
|
| Crosstown Forum. |
- The more up-front that is available the better.
|
|
| Post-bid conferences. |
- Four meetings: scheduling, utilities, submittals, and partnering.
|
- Have all four meetings and talk on those targeted topics to be used before the letting. May cost more, but it will allow for the contract to start more smoothly.
|
| Money and timing. |
- May have to rearrange our statewide priorities. The state tightened their belts to do this for them. ROC-52 is an example. That's the better way to do it, and keeps things from getting bogged down. The pitch was to Doug: Could this happen?
|
- Re-allocation is one of the top things on the financing list.
|
| Innovative contracting. |
|
|
| Delivery. |
|
|
| Find money to do Stage 0. |
- Need to get that done. We need to not lose 2006.
|
- Immediate needs to find that first money for those two bridges would be to achieve a goal to keep the program on schedule.
|
| Funding. |
- Drives the fact that we can have two contracts.
|
- Get first staging done now.
|
| Stage 1. |
- There is not a lot of bypass to do Stage 1.
|
- Whenever you let, its good.
|
| Stage 4. |
|
|
| One contract. |
|
|
| Hwy 100 South. |
- This is linked to that roadway. The sooner this is done, we can then get 100 S done.
|
|
| Contractor comes up with the staging. |
|
|
| Best value may be used for D/B. |
- Stage-Build: 95 percent design and only need to get the staging done.
|
|
| A+B. |
- There is no need for the stipend by using A+B.
|
|
| D/B/B. |
- We can do both A+B and D/B/B.
|
|
| D/B. |
- 90 percent design done and then the project become D/B and now they are looking at the staging, construction, and traffic management.
|
|
| RFP. |
- Our commitments need to be upheld with the cities.
|
|
| Esthetics. |
- Wall types and what it looks like is already solidified with the cities.
|
|
| Warranty design. |
- Not double up design work. Need to give contractor work that they can trust.
|
- We need to stand behind our work.
|
| Stand by our design efforts. |
- We want to look to see if D/B works or not and at what percent.
|
- We have to look at staging plans and structure it. We have to be sure if they did not have the plans. We have to have something laid out well.
|
| Stipend for staging plans. |
- Accountability for construction staging.
|
- Money well spent for the data, and all the data is ours.
|
| Ramp closure matrix. |
- Ramp closure matrix could be used to coordinate multiple ramps and rules with the closures. That way we at least have some sort of evaluation for this project. Going to have to set up all the criteria.
|
|
| Stipend traffic. |
|
|
| Documents. |
- What a contractor needs vs. what Mn/DOT produces.
|
|
| Staging plans. |
- How much would it cost? 3 or 4 months. Two-four people. All three dimensions would have to be looked at. Need three dimensions to get a good price.
|
- $1.2 to $1.4 million to get a project D/B.
|
| Shaving this schedule. |
- For A+B, could help to manage the ending of the project.
|
|
| Winning the job as a contractor. |
- Road user costs are not easily reported and measured.
|
|
| Do we do A+B? |
- Extra funding due to calendar. Can be done together.
|
|
| Ramp closure incentives. |
- We should not cap the incentive.
|
|
| Schedule. |
- Approve updates with the contractor, having payment that is tied to the schedule
|
|
| Cost- and resource-loaded schedule. |
- By attaining resource loading, we get more information about the productivity of the contactor.
|
|
| Lane rental. |
- Forces the contractor to do that job with his subcontractors.
|
- Possibly be able to rent out the complete outright closure of the roadway.
|
| Paving in the middle. |
|
|
| Master utility agreements. |
- Used for design-build, but we can use it on conventional projects. This is interstate money and we can participate. Contractor-State-Utility to move utilities in a timely manner.
|
- Some favors will need to be done with Minneapolis.
|
| Resource loading for CMP for state personnel. |
- Updates need to be updated and for all scheduling. Mn/DOT does not do that on a monthly basis. No real indication is told by Artamis.
|
|
| Expedition. |
- Shop drawing linked together and data collected.
|
- Buy the product for the job.
|
| TRAC. |
|
- Have a digital field data collection method with PDA that plugs into the database to organize field data, photos, and shop drawings.
|
| Escrow bid documents. |
|
|
| Standard DRB. |
- Design Resolution Boards. Standing group of people.
|
- Good deterrent to getting the two parties to work together.
|
| Establish dispute resolution board. |
- Have a dispute ladder. You can ultimately go to court.
|
|
| Quarterly DRB meetings on partnering. |
- Partnering meetings. Two to three day workshop up front.
|
- Regular partnering meetings.
|
| Warranties. |
- We currently have not touched on that today. ROC 52 has 5 year warranty on the concrete.
|
- Contractor guarantee and good quality control could be alternative to warranties.
|
| Contractor guaranteed program. |
- May have some merit to do what they are doing. We have to place some systems to get that to work here in Minnesota.
|
|
| Value engineering. |
- 90-10 or more than 50. Dan Dorgan is investigating the way structure foundations. They are in support of a 90-10 split.
|
- May create a double dipping. Maybe a negotiated Supplemental Agreement may be the way to go.
|
| Negotiated supplement agreement. |
- Project specific items are not value engineering.
|
|
| Shortlist the D/B. |
- We would need to shortlist to make sure that it will not go over.
|
- See if we can shave time off of this job.
|
| Shortlist. |
- Safety, design, schedule, staging, lane rental, and staging.
|
|
| Can you shave time? |
- Given the plan we have provided, can you shave time off?
|
|
| Staging. |
- Different contractors have different strengths. The bridge spatiality people and the road people. Hopefully, they will all be the same. How much different can they be? Will the contractor look at a more aggressive staging plan than the current design consultant? What has to be done? Is it necessary to have this method?
|
- The assumptions of the contractor will be on the conservative side.
|
| Incentive. |
- Motivation to keep the movement open.
|
|
| D/B. |
- Will this add good PR to get the project done?
|
|
| Surety bonds. |
- The bid bond is forfeited if they rescind the bid.
|
|
| Two-Step Best Value. |
- We ultimately want the staging plan to be contractor driven.
|
|
| DRB. |
- DRB is used mainly for Design-Build. It is being used on Wakota. Large projects seem to be a good idea for its use.
|
|
| PDAs and database. |
- Electronic construction documents.
|
|
| Electronic grade control. |
- Wilmar District is working on drainage ponds. Grade control: issue is whether or not the design is correct. There is extra work to do that.
|
- Grade control could be provided electronically.
|
| BidX. |
- Mn/DOT is currently on BidX. We have a Web site that has preliminary plans on the network. The final plans go out as paper. There is a way to look at layouts from the Central Office.
|
- Electronic plans re the long term goal. We are currently providing only preliminary plans.
|
| Web site. |
- No electronic files are on the Web site. We only provide PDFs. We try to give the same amount of paper work to not give one team a bigger advantage over another. Plans are held until a fair and even release date.
|
- With the Best Value Selection Method, we need to give all the contracts a correct start time.
|
| Adjusted price for technical and cost of D/B. |
- The project may be a D/B project. We would have to write the RFP to evaluate well broken down categories for the value engineering project.
|
|
| Compaction. |
- This is a specified job. We are currently basing our ordinary compaction with our DCPs.
|
- Compactor with compaction readout equipment and a graphical illustration of the compaction of the grade.
|
| Storm sewer. |
- At 39th Street drop shaft, there is a head end of a storm sewer water. Takes the drainage from 35W at Minnehaha Creek to the Mississippi River. There is a water pipe that is going to be constructed in from 40th North.
|
|
| Segmental bridges. |
- Casting yard will be a big job and will be on the critical path.
|
|
| Southbound to Westbound 62 may be a steel bridge. |
- We are looking at the types of bridges and the amount of time it takes to construct the bridges and how we can stage the bridges in the job.
|
- Critical path needs to be identified.
|
| Drainage system. |
- There is a downstream condition that needs to be fixed more. The whole tunnel is separately being studied.
|
|
| Matrix for closures. |
- We arbitrarily chose 12 weekends for 494. Can we make good use of total closures for the Crosstown? Total closures at night have historically been acceptable to the general public. It is easier for contractor to do a total closure instead of half stepping. It is something we need to look at. Detours would be 55 and 100 and be better than the 494 job. Maybe on a big job we need to close that thing to save all that time on Albuquerque, NM. They went out at night and did a big job at night. Weekends would be easier to close this down. Working nights for a long time can burn out the workers.
|
- The potential time advantage and construction advantage could be an attractive consideration.
|
| Public notice requirements for closures. |
- Traffic management and PR folks will work on that.
|
- If we are working on one side, we may have one movement be taken. It could be worth investigating. Total closure in one direction could be the norm.
|
| 494 |
- 12 total weekends and 40 nights. 70 or total days 494 was closed down and it worked.
|
|
| Direction days. |
- Maybe we say that there is a points approach to grabbing lanes and movements.
|
- There are certain combinations you cannot do on closures.
|
| Peak closures. |
- You could allow for non-peak closures. You could reduce peak closures.
|
- Ramp could be closed for eight days and then they need to build a bypass to avoid a penalty.
|
| Mota. |
- Determine the closures and ramps based on traffic movements.
|
|
