|FHWA > Engineering > Construction > Contract Admin > SEP 14: Annual Report 2009: Capital Beltway HOT Lanes Project > Section 2|
SEP 14: Annual Report 2009: Capital Beltway HOT Lanes Project
2 Project Status
This section provides an overview of milestones achieved in 2008 and a detailed discussion of the status of project scope, schedule, and budget.
2.1 Chronology of Project Milestones
In 2008, VDOT, Fluor-Lane and CBE significantly advanced the design portion of the project scope, developed right-of-way (ROW) plans, performed preparatory work for ROW acquisition, and initiated project construction.
The design portion of the project scope includes approximately 197 design packages. At the time of Design Public Hearing in May 2008, the project design could be characterized as 30 to 40 percent complete. Throughout the remainder of 2008, the project team undertook a concerted effort to move design packages to Approved for Construction (AFC) status, thereby providingsigned mylars and approval to proceed with construction.
To accelerate progress, an Interdisciplinary Coordination/Prioritization Group was developed and met weekly. The purpose of this group, composed of VDOT representatives, the principal design firm HNTB, Fluor-Lane, and CBE, was to ensure that design packages were being advanced in accordance with the construction schedule, and that individual packages did not lose momentum while awaiting input from designers and reviewers from other technical disciplines. For example, many bridge submittals required input from roadway designers to ensure that roadway geometry was accurately coordinated with the structural design. This group was successful in improving coordination and prioritizing the design. The design/builder also prioritized the packages by sequence of construction, therefore focusing the designer on completing these prioritized packages first.
In December 2008, as a result of the project quarterly partnering meeting, it was agreed that the pace of design needed to be further increased, so a goal was set of achieving 100 signed AFC mylars in 100 days, ending March 15, 2009. As of the date of this report, the project team is on track to reach this goal, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. To facilitate achieving this ambitious goal, project partners agreed to establish a senior review team to facilitate correction and approval of those packages for which design was 100 percent complete in the design/builder's estimate, but still contained issues of concern to the VDOT and General Engineering Consultant (GEC) reviewers. This team, which includes the VDOT Project Manager; FHWA Project Manager; Fluor-Lane Construction Manager; CBE General Manager; and senior design and management staff from Fluor-Lane, HNTB, and the VDOT GEC, is fully empowered to make the necessary decisions to move design packages forward to final AFC approval.
Following is a more-detailed status of project design as of the date of this report.
Approved For Construction Packages
Through the reporting period shown in Exhibit 1, 68 design packages have been designated as AFC:
Exhibit 1 Signed Mylars (AFC) by February 19, 2009
Exhibit 2 lists the progress on AFC packages as of mid-February, 2009.
Structures - Bridge Structures Packages
Since the January reporting period, one additional bridge structure package has progressed to 100 percent, for a total of 44 AFC packages to date. A total of 22 other packages have increased progress percent complete. Bridge structures packages suspended and/or stopped work due to VDOT Directive Change(s) are indicated.
Roadway (Clearing & Grubbing, and MOT)
Clearing and Grubbing plans for all sections are 100 percent complete. Phase 1MOT plans for sections 1 - 6 and 8 are 100 percent complete. Final roadway design for each section continues to be progressed, ranging from 31 percent to 91 percent complete at the time of this writing.
Grading and Drainage
Section 7, Grading and Drainage, has been placed on hold due to coordination needs with Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA). The remaining seven section packages have reached 100 percent through this period.
Walls include both retaining walls and soundwalls. Eight wall packages have reached 100 percent completion, including one retaining wall package and seven soundwall packages. However, at the time of this writing, selected soundwall work has been put on hold pending VDOT's review of citizen requests, via the Design Public Hearing, to raise the height of soundwalls in certain locations. Additionally, final wall design and locations required refinement of design data to ensure compliance with requirements.
2.2.2 ROW Acquisition
As of late February 2009, ROW design packages for Sections 2 through 6 have been signed. Sections 2 through 6 have been approved for ROW acquisition, There is no ROW to be acquired in Section 1. Section 7 ROW plans have advanced to 100 percent and approvalI is expected soon. There are 138 parcels to be acquired, and currently one has been cleared. All parcels are scheduled and expected to clear by January 2010.
In 2008 the project team initiated and ramped up the construction scope. Ongoing elements of this effort are as follows:
Construction activities in the specific construction areas are described below.
Area 1 (South of I-66 Interchange)
Area 2 (I-66 Interchange)
Area 3 (North of I-66 Interchange)
Area 4 (Springfield Interchange)
The initial baseline schedule submitted on February 8, 2008 and was approved by VDOT on May 15, 2008 to become the baseline schedule. This schedule has a total of 4,502 activities, with 57 activities on the longest/critical path and meets the contractual completion milestones - substantial completion by December 20, 2012, and final acceptance by March 19, 2013. It was agreed that the schedule updates would include details as they become available, particularly in the ROW area and in construction activities of longer than 30 days' duration. An explanation was to be provided for critical construction activities with durations longer than 30 days in these updates.
Baseline schedule updates have been submitted every month, starting in June 2008, and are included as part of the invoicing process between the design-builder and CBE. The updates have provided additional activities to show greater detail of the work and have had logic changes.
VDOT does not approve the updates, according to the Amended and Restated Comprehensive Agreement (ARCA). The ARCA allows VDOT to request a revised baseline schedule. VDOT made such a request after reviewing the July 2008 baseline schedule update for the following reasons:
In September, CBE and Fluor-Lane agreed to make the adjustments and incorporate them into a baseline schedule update. Once approved, this update would become the revised baseline schedule. As of January 27, 2009, CBE/Fluor-Lane has not submitted a baseline schedule update that is ready for VDOT approval to become the revised baseline schedule.
A Time Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted to VDOT on January 16, 2009, relating to a proposed change order to replace the existing I-495 NB bridge over Chain Bridge Road, Route 123. According to the ARCA, VDOT is to approve the TIA before it can be incorporated into the next baseline schedule update. This TIA was deficient in that it did not meet the requirements of the ARCA and would not allow complete analysis by VDOT. A revised TIA is now pending resubmission by CBE/Fluor-Lane.
The latest baseline schedule update, December 2008, contains 7,347 activities; 28 of the 68 activities on the longest path are new activities added since the baseline schedule approval. This update also contains 420 construction activities with durations longer than 30 days, compared to the baseline schedule with 376 of these activities. The longest/critical path runs almost exclusively through Design Section 7. It should be noted that the Chain Bridge Road proposed change order is located in Section 7. Throughout Section 7 and the rest of the project, Fluor-Lane has continued to "consume" float in the schedule and/or adjusted logic because of delays in design approvals and ROW activities. VDOT is very concerned with the progress and the ability of CBE/Fluor-Lane to successfully complete the work within the contractual completion milestones.
In a PPTA project, both the Concessionaire and VDOT have a financial interest in the project. In this case, the Concessionaire is looking to make improvements to generate revenue from HOT lanes, and VDOT is interested in adding capacity to a congested section of freeway. Because both parties share an interest in completing the project, the funding for the project is split through a negotiation process.
The I-495 HOT Lanes project was initiated through an unsolicited proposal from the Concessionaire. In conformance with Virginia law, VDOT advertised for competing proposals for 120 days, but an alternative proposal was not developed. Therefore, for this project, the Concessionaire developed the concept for design and construction without competition. In a traditional design-build (D/B) project, alternative D/B proposals and bid prices are always requested from multiple bidders, and the winning team is selected from a "best value" scoring system. This process allows the overall price to be driven by competitive market forces.
VDOT is providing project oversight for this project through a combined VDOT/General Engineering Contractor (GEC) project office. The GEC during Design Phase is providing approximately 120 full or part-time technical professionals to support Project Oversight. The level of effort required to manage a PPTA project is extremely difficult to predict because the State does not have direct control over the submittal schedule and day to day management of the project. Consequently, the State is in a reactive mode to addresss design, public involvement, and coordination efforts expediently in the interest of project, even if those efforts are not specifically scoped and budgeted at the project outset.
2.4.1 Design/Build Budget
As of mid-February, dollars expended by the Design/Builder are less than planned, as illustrated by the Exhibit 3, Schedule of Values, and Exhibit 4, Comparison of BCWP to BCWS. This is attributed primarily to construction work running behind schedule. Ultimately, the Design/Builder can invoice for no more than the agreed fixed price of the contract, so variances in design/build expenditures from planned to actual are far more meaningful to the Design/Builder than they are to the Concessionaire or to VDOT.
Exhibit 3 Schedule of Values
Exhibit 4 Budgeted cost of work performed versus the budgeted cost of work scheduled
2.4.2 VDOT Oversight Budget
Annual Work Plan (AWP) Year 1 for VDOT project oversight began July 1, 2008. The budget for this AWP was just over $8 million and was designed to deliver limited oversight and independent assurance/independent verification (IA/IV), as agreed in the ARCA. Through January 2009, VDOT has spent considerably more than was budgeted for oversight. This is attributable to the following:
As noted in Exhibit 5, VDOT currently projects its AWP 1 expenditures at $9.8 million, representing an overrun of nearly 25 percent.
Exhibit 5 GEC Expenditures
With a total of approximately $24 million budgeted for oversight over the life of the project, VDOT will, at the end of AWP 1, have spent nearly $10 million and will have only $14 million remaining for the ensuing 3.5 years of the project. This is a serious issue that VDOT will need to address. Means of addressing the issue may include:
2.5 Approved Changes to Scope, Schedule and Budget
As of the writing of this report there are no approved changes to scope, schedule, and budget. There are some 85 items on an issues list. (D/B's potential change order (PCO) log), all of which are in some stage of negotiation between the project partners. Of these, 28 issues involve VDOT and Fluor-Lane and the remaining involve Fluor-Lane and CBE. There are currently four change orders under negotiation and subject to FHWA approval.