Michigan M 15: Performance Contracting Overview and MDOT Direction

slide 1: Performance Contracting in Michigan

Jack Hofweber, P.E.

Manager
Bay City Transportation Service Center
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
(989) 239-2681
hofweberj@michigan.gov

slide notes:

None.

slide 2: Michigan DOT M-115 – Highways for Life – Performance-Based Contract

5.5 Mile, Rural, Two-lane Road and Bridge Reconstruction
Best-Value Contract Award
Formula for Evaluating Price and Non-Price Factors

Map of Michigan with the project location highlighted.

slide notes:

None.

slide 3: HfL and Project Goals

Open to Traffic
Construction & Cleanup Completion
Pavement Performance
Worker Safety During Construction
Work Zone Crashes
Motorist Delay

slide notes:

None.

slide 4: Seven Evaluation Factors Totaling 150 Points

Open to Traffic Date (max points 20)
Construction and Cleanup Completion Date (max points 5)
Pavement Performance Goal (max points 50)
Worker Safety Plan (max points 5)
Work Zone Safety Plan (max points 10)
Reducing Motorist Delay Plan (max points 30)
Project Innovations (max points 30)

slide notes:

What did we get from these evaluations?

Temp. Lanes
Pre-cast bridges
Grabber cones
Rubblizing ex pavement
Shoulder object markers

slide 5: Best-Value Determination

Contractor Name	Contractor Score	Cost Multiplier	Contractor Bid	Best Value
Rieth-Riley Construction Company, Inc.	111	0.852	$5,755,413.00	$4,903,611.87
Central Asphalt, Inc. (Awarded)	80	0.8933	$4,477,777.77	$3,999,998.88
Pyramid Paving and Contracting Company, Inc. (Unable to secure a single term, six-year warranty)	62	0.9173	$4,190,777.00	$3,844,199.74

slide notes:

None.

slide 6: Lessons Learned

Pavement Warranty
Innovations in Violation
Test Project Requirements/Goal
Inaccurate Existing Bridge Plan
Provisions to Accommodate Site Changes

slide notes:

Single-Term versus Multiple-Term

Original selected Contractor had submitted a 6 year pavement warranty that they could not obtain.

Innovations Submitted in Violation of Project Requirements – One Contractor put in this proposal that no seeding would be done to reduce car deer crashes. The contract clearly stated a required seed mixture.

Test your project requirements and goals. Perform WHAT IF questions to the Stakeholders and other groups. We found that meeting AASHTO bridge width requirements did not necessarily meet MDOT's.

Provisions to Accommodate Site Changes (Lump Sum Payment)

slide 7: What Is Michigan Doing Next with Performance Contracting?
(Driven from HfL Project)

Develop Innovative Construction Contracting Guidance Document
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) Project Delivery. Zilwaukee Precast Segmental Bridge Replacement.
MDOT's Goal 10% of Projects P.C.

slide notes:

Innovative Construction Contracting Guidance Document out December 1, 2010
Project out of our office using CMGC $40 million awarded to PCL Civil Construction Inc Tampa Florida.
MDOT has not met this 10% goal.