Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway AdministrationSearch FHWAFeedback

Construction

Evaluation Report of Contractor Selection Using Best Value Practices for Highways for Life

On M-115 from Lake Station north to Clare/Osceola County Line and M-115 over the Doc & Tom Creek (B01 of 18011) and M-115 over Norway Creek (B02 of 18011) in Freeman Township, Clare County, Michigan Michigan JN 84169 & 85241

Proposed by the Michigan Department of Transportation

June 16, 2008

Contact Person:

Jack Hofweber, P.E.
Mt Pleasant Development Engineer
Phone: (989) 775-6104 ext 302
Email: hofweberj@michigan.gov

  1. Introduction & Background

    This initial Work Plan Report will consist of the results of the submitted bids and summaries evaluation teams score and adjusted best value price for each Contractor. The second report, “Post Construction Report” will evaluate the selected Contractor’s performance and end product quality, cost and time as compared to what would be expected from normal contracting methods.

    This contract was not awarded solely on price, but it was awarded to the Contractor whose proposal represents the best value to MDOT considering price, goals, plans and innovations.

  2. Project Location

    This 5.5 mile rural two lane project is located on M-115 from Lake Station Avenue to the Osceola/Clare County Line, Freeman Township, Clare County Michigan.

  3. Purpose

    The purpose of this work plan is for a private Contractor to be responsible for achieving a defined set of goals, and where performance goals are specified instead of methods. This method is designed to promote new innovational processes and techniques from MDOT and private industry. As a result identify new methods to reconstruct highways and bridges safer, faster and better.

  4. Best-Value Section Results

    The “Best-Value” contracting concept incorporates components of both the low bid process and Contractors whose proposal represents the best value to MDOT considering price, goals, plans and innovations.

    Three technical proposals were submitted to MDOT from pre-qualified Hot Mix Asphalt Contractors.

    1. Rieth Riley Construction Co., Inc.
    2. Central Asphalt, Inc. (Contract Awarded)
    3. Pyramid Paving & Contracting Co., Inc.

    See Table 1 “Score Sheet” for evaluations and scores by consensus of the selection team that consisted of the following MDOT staff:

    • Jack Hofweber, Mt Pleasant TSC, Development Engineer
    • James D. Culp, Engineer of Traffic and Safety
    • William J. Mayhew, Mt Pleasant TSC Delivery Engineer
    • Terry L. Anderson, Bay Region Engineer
    • Ali Mahdavi, Bridge Design Engineer
    • Curtis Bleech, Pavement Construction Engineer

    In Table 2 “Adjusted Best-Value Price” shows the adjusted best-value price.

  5. Contractor Award

    Pyramid Paving Company was originally selected based on the best-value selection process shown in table 1 and 2. However, Pyramid Paving Company withdrew their proposal on March 20, 2008 due to their inability to acquire a six-year performance warranty bond. Therefore, MDOT requested by letter of Public Interest Finding to second low bidder and was approved to award the contract to the responsive best-value proposal furnished by Central Asphalt, Inc. (see exhibit 1 & 2).

  6. Project Goals Vs. Contractor’s Reactions

    This project had set up six project goals:

    1. Open to Traffic Date

      Two of the three Contractors provide an early Open to Traffic date in their proposals (Central Asphalt and Pyramid Paving).

      In order to achieve an early open to traffic date, both Contractors proposed rapid bridge construction techniques. One method offered a pre-cast concrete deck and beams. The Contractor that was awarded this project will use a clear span unit developed by Hy-Span Instant Bridge Systems. For more information on this type of bridge, please visit: http://www.icpipe.com/products/hyspan.asp

    2. Construction & Cleanup Completion Date

      Two of the three Contractors provided a construction and cleanup time less then the project goal of 15 days after the Open to Traffic date.

    3. Pavement Performance

      The project Pavement Performance goals are Initial Pavement Acceptance, Pavement Performance Warranty of at least five-years, and a Ride Quality Index of 30 or less with no grinding of final top course.

      Two of the three Contractors provided a pavement performance warranty greater then five-years. Pyramid Paving submitted a six-year warranty but could not secure a six-year bond. Rieth-Riley Construction Company submitted an eight- year bond. Central Asphalt submitted a five-year pavement performance warranty.

      Central Asphalt who was awarded this project proposed changing MDOT’s design cross section from hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on existing composite concrete pavement to removing the existing HMA, rubblizing the existing concrete and place the HMA layers.

    4. Worker Safety during Construction

      The project goal for Worker Safety is as follows:

      Worker injury rate (total recordable case rate) less than the rate of 4.0 based on the OSHA 300 rate is the goal for this project.

      All three Contractors provided an adequate workers’ safety plan. Out of the three proposals, one unique innovation was provided. This unique innovation was to give the workers lighted flashing arm bans for night work. This innovation was submitted by Rieth-Riley Construction Company.

    5. Work Zone Crashes

      The project goal for work zone crashes is as stated:

      Maintain the total pre-construction crash rate of no more then 1.0 crash per month on this 5.56 mile section of roadway for the duration of the project.

      Of the three Contractors, Central Asphalt had the best work zone safety plan. Central Asphalt proposed to widen the existing shoulder to provide two-way traffic for most of the construction stages. This will reduce traffic backups caused by the traditional method of flag control operations. By eliminating the stopping caused by flag control, it is expected to reduce work zone crashes. The Contractor also proposed emergency traffic relief areas and emergency traffic control personal to assist motorists with various problems including flat tires, gasoline, diesel fuel and minor trailer problems. The rapid bridge technique will reduce overall exposure to stop and go traffic control and therefore, reducing exposure to crashes.

      The other two Contractors proposed traffic control regulators that will be responsible for adjusting traffic control items as needed, to keep the steady minimally interrupted flow of traffic and check the placement of signs, barricades, channeling devices and lights. Other innovations include: radar speed signs, additional police surveillance, pilot cars, and self adjusting temporary traffic signals at the two bridges.

    6. Motorist Delay

      The project goal for Motorist delay is as stated:

      Stage operations to minimize motorist delay. No vehicle shall be delayed due to Contractor’s operations more than 10 minutes beyond its normal travel time. Change work operations as needed, to maintain delays below this maximum.

      Of the three Contractors, Central Asphalt’s work zone safety plan had the best innovations as it pertains to reducing motorist delays. As stated in the above Work Zone Crashes goal, Central Asphalt’s work zone plan will provide two lanes of traffic for most of the construction stages. This innovation by far had the most benefits to the traveling public.

    Other innovations provided were as follows:

    • Fully open roadway on historic peak travel times (all Contractors)
    • Self adjusting temporary traffic signals at the two bridges (Pyramid Paving Company)
    • Alternate detour routes (all Contractors)
    • Pilot Cars (Pyramid Paving Company and Rieth-Riley Inc.)
    • Night time work (Rieth-Riley Inc.)

    Contractor’s innovations that violated the project requirements and MDOT policy:

    Rieth-Riley Construction Company proposed deleting the slope restoration adjacent to the aggregate shoulder. Their reason was to help meet MDOT’s goal in reducing the number of animal/vehicular accidents. This was in clear violation of the project requirements for seed mixture to reduce deer crashes.

    Pyramid Paving Company proposed a bridge width of 40 feet which meets AASHTO minimum width, but violates MDOT bridge width policy. Pyramid’s proposal would have had to been accepted as is because the HfL contract did not state minimum width on bridge. If Pyramid Paving Company would have got the award, MDOT would have had to negotiate a new bridge width of 44 feet or submitted a MDOT design exception.

    The following comments are industry’s reactions received:

    Development:

    The collaboration between MDOT, FHWA and Industry proved very valuable. The discussion and sharing of practices and ideas generated a set of goals that were more realistic than first proposed. Industry had the desire to take a more proactive role in the construction methods/procedures and through our series of meetings MDOT/FHWA agreed to relax their standard operating procedure by requiring a warranty. This allowed for greater flexibility in construction methods and allowed for a more expeditious proposed project schedule.

    Letting:

    Generating the proposal was not as tedious as assumed. However, if all projects required this level of attention contractors would need to add additional staff.

    There were no major concerns with the letting methodology/procedure.

    The weighting system should be re-evaluated to place a higher weight on the proposal value.

    Award:

    There was a big problem with the award of the project. The letting was in December 2007 and in April of 2008 the project was finally awarded to the second low bidder. This impacted the start of the project and many of the time saving innovations that would have allowed for the project to be completed on time. Per the contract, work schedules are severely restricted during the summer months due to the increase in traffic volume. The delay of the award put the contractor at a big disadvantage.

    Douglas Needham, Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association

    Development:

    I feel that we needed to have at least one additional meeting of MDOT/FHWA/ Industry task force which developed the project. We had a good exchange of ideas but, in my opinion, had to rush at the end to meet the deadlines. Developing a new process such as this is complicated and is best served if ample time is available. Also, I think this type of a task is best suited for face to face discussions rather than emails and conference calls.

    Letting:

    I have received no negative feedback regarding the bid letting process or the amount of work required to prepare a proposal.

    Proposal Evaluation Factors:

    Pavement Performance Goal (length of warranty) – the longer term warranty bonds (greater than 5 years) were not easily obtained. Some surety companies were reluctant to provide longer term bonds without additional financial guarantees from the contractor. Given this situation, the total points for warranty (50 of 150) and points assigned to the various warranty terms needs to be re-evaluated for future projects.

    Innovation (maximum of 30 points) –I think we were implicitly “balancing” the total points for innovation and warranty period. I think we assumed that contractors would provide longer warranty terms to go along with their proposed pavement innovations and would, in essence, be indirectly rewarded for innovation. This would be in addition to the 30 points available for the total project innovation, i.e., road, bridge, delay reduction, and materials.

    The total contractor scores ranged from 111 points to 62 points. I would agree that the weighting system and evaluation factors used for the best value calculation need to be re-evaluated.

    I also agree with MITA’s comment that a higher weight should be placed on the proposal value (contractor’s score) by reducing the weight given to the contractor’s bid price.

    This could be accomplished, in part, by increasing the weighting on innovation, one of the goals of HfL. It would require a close review of the scoring criteria for innovation as one of the industry’s concerns was minimizing the subjectivity for scoring this element.

    Award:

    The delayed award was unfortunate and must be taken into account when evaluating the project.

    A.John Becsey, Asphalt Pavement Association of Michigan

  7. Project Construction Schedule (2008)

    Stage 1 BridgesApril, 2008 – June 1, 2008
    Stage 2 Temp. SB ShoulderAug. 18, 2008 – Aug. 21, 2008
    Stage 3 NB RoadworkAug. 22, 2008 – Sept. 22, 2008
    Stage 4 SB RoadworkSept. 23, 2008 – Oct. 28, 2008
    Stage 5 NB HMA Top, Paint & CleanupOct. 29, 2008 – Nov. 18, 2008
  8. Project Contract Contacts

    Bill Mayhew, P.E
    Delivery Engineer
    Mt Pleasant Transportation Service Center
    1212 Corporate Drive
    Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
    mayhewb@michigan.gov

    Thomas Nelson
    Senior Construction Technician
    Mt. Pleasant Transportation Service Center
    1212 Corporate Drive
    Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
    NelsonT2@michigan.gov

    Table 1: Evaluation Factors

    SCORE SHEET
    ****ALL CONTRACTORS MUST BE SCORED****

     CONTRACTORS NAME:
    Central Asphalt, Inc.
    Total PossibleRater’s Score
    Best ValueBest Value
    A. Factors
    1.) Open to Traffic
    • 0 points: August 2nd, 2008 (Baseline)
    • 1-5 points: August 1st - July 15th, 2008
    • 6-20 points: July 14th - July 2nd, 2008
    Reviewer’s Comments: July 2, 20082020
    2.) Construction and Cleanup Completion
    • 0 points: 15 days after open to traffic (Baseline)
    • 1-5 points: 14 - 5 days after open to traffic
    Reviewer’s Comments: 15 Day50
    3.) Pavement Performance Goal
    • 0 points: 5 year pavement warranty (Baseline)
    • 15 points: 6 year pavement warranty
    • 30 points: 7 year pavement warranty
    • 50 points: 8 year pavement warranty
    Reviewer’s Comments: Five Years500
    4.) Develop and provide a “Worker Safety Plan” as it relates to the goal of Worker Safety During Construction
    • 0 points: A generic “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-2 points: An adequate general “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 3-5 points: A clearly defined “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    Reviewer’s Comments: No Past – 300 rating54
    5.) Develop and provide a “Work Zone Safety Plan” as it relates to the goal of Work Zone Crashes
    • 0 points: A generic “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-5 points: An adequate general “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 6-10 points: A clearly defined “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Clearly defined plan.
    Traffic signals had no timing or sensors.
    108
    6.) Develop and provide a “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” as it relates to the goal of Motorist Delay
    • 0 points: A generic “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-15 points: An adequate general “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 16-30 points: A clearly defined “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal including proven traffic engineering tools and analysis to manage motorist delay.
    3028
    B. Innovations
    1.) Describe innovations that will be incorporated into the project including, but not limited to, Road Construction, Bridge Construction, Delay Reduction, and Materials.
    • 0 points: Innovations that most likely can’t be used and provide no value.
    • 1-15 points: Innovations that could be used in the project and provide some value.
    • 16-30 points: Innovations that are usable in the project and provide significant value.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Hy-span anchorage to existing walls without removing the entire span to remove the existing abutments will conflict with permit.3020
    Maximum Total15080
     CONTRACTORS NAME:
    Pyramid Paving Company
    Total PossibleRater’s Score
    Best ValueBest Value
    A. Factors
    1.) Open to Traffic
    • 0 points: August 2nd, 2008 (Baseline)
    • 1-5 points: August 1st - July 15th, 2008
    • 6-20 points: July 14th - July 2nd, 2008
    Reviewer’s Comments: July 14, 2008206
    2.) Construction and Cleanup Completion
    • 0 points: 15 days after open to traffic (Baseline)
    • 1-5 points: 14 - 5 days after open to traffic
    Reviewer’s Comments: 5 Days55
    3.) Pavement Performance Goal
    • 0 points: 5 year pavement warranty (Baseline)
    • 15 points: 6 year pavement warranty
    • 30 points: 7 year pavement warranty
    • 50 points: 8 year pavement warranty
    Reviewer’s Comments: Six years5015
    4.) Develop and provide a “Worker Safety Plan” as it relates to the goal of Worker Safety During Construction
    • 0 points: A generic “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-2 points: An adequate general “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 3-5 points: A clearly defined “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Generic plan with very high OSHA 300 rate51
    5.) Develop and provide a “Work Zone Safety Plan” as it relates to the goal of Work Zone Crashes
    • 0 points: A generic “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-5 points: An adequate general “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 6-10 points: A clearly defined “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Adequate plan. Few specifics103
    6.) Develop and provide a “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” as it relates to the goal of Motorist Delay
    • 0 points: A generic “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-15 points: An adequate general “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 16-30 points: A clearly defined “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal including proven traffic engineering tools and analysis to manage motorist delay.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Did not show proven traffic tool. Failed to demonstrate how the plan for paving operation. No say on if they are going measure delays and adjust 3016
    B. Innovations
    1.) Describe innovations that will be incorporated into the project including, but not limited to, Road Construction, Bridge Construction, Delay Reduction, and Materials.
    • 0 points: Innovations that most likely can’t be used and provide no value.
    • 1-15 points: Innovations that could be used in the project and provide some value.
    • 16-30 points: Innovations that are usable in the project and provide significant value.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Most paving operation was as per MDOT’s log. Material transfer device is required.3016
    Maximum Total15062
     CONTRACTORS NAME:
    Rieth-Riley Construction Company
    Total PossibleRater’s Score
    Best ValueBest Value
    A. Factors
    1.) Open to Traffic
    • 0 points: August 2nd, 2008 (Baseline)
    • 1-5 points: August 1st - July 15th, 2008
    • 6-20 points: July 14th - July 2nd, 2008
    Reviewer’s Comments: August 2, 2008200
    2.) Construction and Cleanup Completion
    • 0 points: 15 days after open to traffic (Baseline)
    • 1-5 points: 14 - 5 days after open to traffic
    Reviewer’s Comments: 5 Day55
    3.) Pavement Performance Goal
    • 0 points: 5 year pavement warranty (Baseline)
    • 15 points: 6 year pavement warranty
    • 30 points: 7 year pavement warranty
    • 50 points: 8 year pavement warranty
    Reviewer’s Comments: Eight Years5050
    4.) Develop and provide a “Worker Safety Plan” as it relates to the goal of Worker Safety During Construction
    • 0 points: A generic “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-2 points: An adequate general “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 3-5 points: A clearly defined “Worker Safety Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Have good safety records; adequate general plan. Flashing arm bands for night work.52
    5.) Develop and provide a “Work Zone Safety Plan” as it relates to the goal of Work Zone Crashes
    • 0 points: A generic “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-5 points: An adequate general “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 6-10 points: A clearly defined “Work Zone Safety Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Clearly defined plan. Above normal staffing (how many people?) What shorter lane closures? How long?107
    6.) Develop and provide a “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” as it relates to the goal of Motorist Delay
    • 0 points: A generic “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with no/few specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 1-15 points: An adequate general “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with some specifics on how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal.
    • 16-30 points: A clearly defined “Reducing Motorist Delay Plan” is provided with a detailed description of how the plan will be followed to achieve the goal including proven traffic engineering tools and analysis to manage motorist delay.
    Reviewer’s Comments: No innovation on bridges. Did not say anything about timing signals. What is above normal staff? No one measurement and correction.3022
    B. Innovations
    1.) Describe innovations that will be incorporated into the project including, but not limited to, Road Construction, Bridge Construction, Delay Reduction, and Materials.
    • 0 points: Innovations that most likely can’t be used and provide no value.
    • 1-15 points: Innovations that could be used in the project and provide some value.
    • 16-30 points: Innovations that are usable in the project and provide significant value.
    Reviewer’s Comments: Bridges had no innovations. Slope restoration is a project requirement.3025
    Maximum Total150111
  9. Adjusted Best-Value Price Table 2

    MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    HIGHWAYS FOR LIFE BID RESULTS

    CONTRACT ID: 18011-84169
    5.55 miles of demonstration road rehabilitation and bridge reconstruction which includes drainage and guardrail improvements along M-115 over Doc and Tom Creek and Norway Creek, Clare County. This project includes a 5 year pavement performance warranty.

    Contractor NameContractor ScoreCost MultiplierContractor BidBest Value
    Rieth-Riley Construction Company, Inc.1110.8520$5,755,413.00$4,903,611.87
    Central Asphalt, Inc. (Awarded)800.8933$4,477,777.77$3,999,998.88
    Pyramid Paving Company (Unable to secure six-year warranty)620.9173$4,190,777.00$3,844,199.74

Contact

Jerry Yakowenko
Office of Program Administration
202-366-1562
E-mail Jerry

 
 
Updated: 07/02/2014
 

FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration