James H. Mattox, III, P.E., DBIA
South Carolina Certified Public Manager Class of 2019
0
1.0 Problem Statement
1.1 Design‐Build Project Delivery
Design‐Build is one of the fastest growing project delivery methods in the United States.
According to research conducted by the Design‐Build Institute of America (DBIA), design‐build spending in transportation projects is anticipated to grow 28% from 2017 to 2021 [1]. Its rising popularity is driven by cost and time savings as well as increased quality gained through design and construction innovations resulting from collaboration between the owner, lead contractor, and lead designer. The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) has used the design‐build project delivery method since 1998. Between 1998 and 2010, SCDOT utilized design‐build sporadically with inconsistent results. In 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) implemented an initiative knows as “Every Day Counts” to encourage improvements in timing of overall processes including project delivery. Design‐Build was identified as an innovation under this program and FHWA provided tools and resources for states to rapidly deploy this initiative [2].
SCDOT embraced this concept and incorporated a renewed vision for design‐build into its Strategic
Plan [3].
SCDOT’s design‐build program has grown significantly since the refocused efforts nearly a decade ago. For the SCDOT 2018 budget year, approximately 18% of the $1.6 billion capital construction budget was delivered via design‐build. Looking ahead over the next 10 years, with the influx of funding due to the increased motor fuel tax in South Carolina [4], SCDOT has estimated that well over $3 billion of infrastructure improvement projects will be delivered utilizing design‐build. In
1 addition, with several “major projects” in development ($500M+), SCDOT has and will continue to add additional dedicated design‐build staff.
1.2 Alternative Technical Concepts in Design‐Build
In order to provide innovative solutions that reduce risk and cost, accelerate schedules, provide flexibility, and enhance value, owners often implement a process known as Alternative
Technical Concepts (ATC) in a design‐build procurement. An ATC is a confidential request by a proposer to modify a contract requirement in the Request for Proposals (RFP), specifically for that proposer, prior to submittal of the proposal. In order to be approved for inclusion into a proposer’s technical proposal, an ATC must be deemed by the owner to provide a project that is equal or better in quality or effect to the requirements set forth in the RFP.
The SCDOT has utilized the ATC contracting tool since 2013 and since that time has received over 800 ATCs. As a result of the growth of the design‐build program, SCDOT expects that the number of ATCs received yearly will increase and anticipates over 180 ATCs per year will be submitted for the next 10 years.
1.3 Problem Statement
In preparation for increased growth, SCDOT desires to maximize the benefits gained from the
ATC process not only on a specific transportation project, but also in shaping policy. In order to accomplish this, it is critical for SCDOT to store historical ATC data in a way that allows it to be utilized in future decision making. ATCs are currently stored electronically in the project files for which they were submitted. Referencing previously submitted ATCs to aid in the review of current ATCs or
2 establish trends is extremely cumbersome due to the existing filing procedures; therefore, this historical data is often ignored.
1.4 Project Goals
This project will focus on collecting and organizing ATC data on SCDOT Design‐Build projects from 2012‐2018 and establishing a management system to store and analyze this data as well as all
ATC data received on future projects. This need was established in SCDOT Director of Preconstruction
John Boylston’s 2014 Certified Public Manger Capstone project report entitled “Alternative Technical
Concepts and Design Build Projects” [3]. Creating a management system for ATCs will help the SCDOT
Design‐Build Group (DBG) increase its efficiency and provide for timely delivery of projects. In addition, this project will contribute to SCDOT’s overall performance goals identified in the 2018‐2020
Strategic Plan ‐ “Improve SCDOT program delivery to increase the efficiency and reliability of our road and bridge network [5].”
The overall project goal of developing an ATC Management System for SCDOT can be further broken down into 3 sub goals. These sub goals are as follows:
1. Provide a single location or management system to store all past, present, and future
ATC data.
2. Provide a variety of search, sort, and query options within the system to be able to
retrieve historic ATC information quickly.
3. Provide a storage system that allows for analysis of ATC data to establish trends.
3
2.0 Data Collection
2.1 Data Collection Goals
The goal of the data collection for this project was to determine state‐of‐practice in ATC management for other state Department of Transportations (DOTs). The online survey tool Qualtrics was used to conduct a nationwide survey of state DOTs to obtain feedback regarding ATC management. Qualtrics was chosen as a convenient method by which to collect data because the survey could be completed online by the respondents and responses stored in format that allowed for simple analysis. The survey was designed so that respondents could complete all questions in less than 5 minutes. Contacts from each state’s DOT were obtained from researchers at the University of
Colorado (CU) who have done significant research in the field of design‐build. As a supplement to the contact list received from CU, at least one additional contact from each state was obtained from internet searches on state DOT websites and attendee lists from DBIA’s annual Design‐Build for
Transportation Conference. Recipients were encouraged to forward the survey to other employees at their agency who were familiar with their ATC process, if they were not the appropriate person to respond.
Figure 1 shows the survey questions and answer choices that were emailed to each respondent through Qualtrics.
4
Figure 1: Survey Questions Questions one and three also had an optional discussion section to allow respondents to elaborate on their answers. Because the survey was given electronically, non‐pertinent questions were not shown to the respondent. If the respondent answered “My agency does not utilize ATCs,” in question one, they were not shown questions two, three, or four. If their response to question two was “No”, question three was not shown. If the response to question four was “yes”, the respondent was given the option to provide up to three contacts for a possible follow‐up. If the response to question four was “no”, the survey closed.
State representatives that did not respond to the survey initially were sent multiple reminders by email through Qualtrics. If responses were not received after multiple email follow‐ups, the project team contacted the representatives by phone and encouraged participation in the survey.
5
Responses from representatives of all 50 states as well as District of Columbia were received. Some states were contacted through email or through phone calls to expand on their answers. Detailed results of the survey are contained in Appendix A.
3.0 Data Analysis
3.1 Summary of Data
The survey results demonstrating how State DOT’s are managing ATC data is shown in Figure 2 below:
ATC Management Types
No ATCs
Tracked During Procurement
Management Database
Other
Figure 2: Survey Results by State
6
3.2 Key Findings
From the survey responses and follow‐up meetings with specific states, the majority of states that have design‐build programs that allow ATCs do not utilize a management system for ATCs and no state had a management system in place that met all three goals established for this project.
Most states have not seen a need to create a formal ATC management system due to a low amount of ATCs that they receive. Those who did track historical ATC data, stored the information in a spreadsheet, not a formal management system. None of the respondents indicated in the survey that analytics could be run directly from their ATC management system. However, in a follow‐up meeting with Minnesota DOT, they provided an Excel spreadsheet that contained graphs and charts that were generated from ATC data that had been manually tracked for over a decade. While both
Nebraska and Utah indicated that they utilized an ATC management system in the survey, follow‐up emails revealed that Utah used a spreadsheet like Minnesota, and that Nebraska was only in the early stages of developing a system.
3.3 Determination of Solution to Achieve Project Goals
The data that was gathered through the survey demonstrated that that there was no robust
ATC management system in use by any state DOT that would meet all three of the project goals. The systems utilized by Georgia and Tennessee would meet the first two project objectives related to storage and search/sort/query, but would not allow for analysis. Similarly, Minnesota DOT’s use of an
Excel spreadsheet would address the project objective related to analysis but would not meet the objectives related to storage and search/sort/query. Since no viable option was found externally, solutions were explored internally.
7
The project team determined that the file management system, ProjectWise, currently used by the SCDOT for storing project related files could also be used as a management system. One of the major advantages of utilizing ProjectWise is that documents do not need to be in the same subdirectory which would allow the DBG to continue to store ATCs in a directory associated with a specific project and not have duplicate files.
In order to utilize ProjectWise as a management system for ATCs, several additional steps would need to be taken when a document is uploaded into ProjectWise. These steps include assigning the ATC to a specific “environment” to allow ProjectWise to act as a database. A
ProjectWise Environment enables the administrator to define project‐specific attributes for a document. It essentially denotes the type of information or “attributes” that are stored along with a specific document. Once populated, a search for an ATC with a specific attribute or combination of attributes within a specified Environment will return any documents that match the criteria within that Environment.
The biggest obstacle to the ProjectWise solution is the initial time required to integrate all historic ATCs into the system. First, all ATC documents from the windows based filing system that was in use by the SCDOT for design‐build projects prior to 2015 would need to uploaded into ProjectWise.
In addition, once all 800+ ATCs are in ProjectWise, they would need to be assigned to a new ATC
Environment and attributes assigned to each individual ATC. However, for future ATCs, the assignment of attributes can be done by the Design‐Build Proposers upon upload using a wizard interface and would only require verification by SCDOT.
SCDOT currently does not have a feature in ProjectWise that allows for data analysis so the third project goal cannot be achieved without an external program such as Microsoft Excel that can analyze data exported from ProjectWise. However, the project team learned that SCDOT would be
8 adding a module in ProjectWise called “Dashboard” by summer 2019 that would allow for data analysis, negating the need for an external program.
After considering the benefits of a ProjectWise based ATC management system, the project team deemed it to be the most appropriate option to achieve the desired project goals. Although, the initial setup in ProjectWise to populate all existing ATC documents with attributes and assign them to a new ATC Environment is time consuming, new data can be added very easily. In addition, this option utilizes software that the DBG and industry partners are familiar with, and could be implemented using internal resources at no additional cost to the SCDOT.
4.0 Implementation Plan
4.1 Steps needed to complete Goal
The development and implementation of the ProjectWise based ATC Management System required the following steps:
1. SCDOT IT Services group (IT) created an environment in ProjectWise specific for ATCs with sample attributes to demonstrate to the DBG how the ATC Management System would function. 2. Once the DBG understood the ProjectWise environment and attributes, the project team interviewed individuals from the DBG to establish attributes related to each discipline including roadway, structures, geotechnical, hydraulic, traffic, construction, legal, right‐of‐ way, utilities, etc. 3. The project team provided attribute information to IT so that they could associate these attributes to the ATC environment. 4. The project team uploaded all ATC files from design‐build projects developed from 2013‐2015 (prior to SCDOT DBG implementing ProjectWise), into ProjectWise to match the filing system in ProjectWise used for ATCs from 2015‐present.
9
5. The project team manually assigned all ATCs to the newly established ATC Environment. 6. The project team assigned attributes to all ATCs. 7. The project team developed training instructions on how to utilize the ATC environment to perform search functions and incorporate future ATCs were prepared. These training instructions are provided in Appendix B. 8. With support of IT, the project team developed a wizard in ProjectWise to lead Design‐Build Proposers, who are submitting ATCs, through a series of well‐defined steps requiring a specific naming convention and assignment of attributes. 9. The project team developed language for the DBG’s standard Request for Proposals (RFP) Template that explains the additional steps required (attribute assignment using the wizard) for submittal of ATCs in ProjectWise. This language is provided in Appendix C. 10. The project team developed a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with preset formulas and graphs that could analyze ATC data exported from ProjectWise. Proof of concept is shown in Appendix D. This is an interim step until SCDOT deploys the Dashboard module in ProjectWise. 11. The project team trained the DBG on these processes.
4.2 Timeframes and Cost
The timeframe for development of the ATC Management system was estimated to be 5 months beginning in June 2018 and ending by the end of November 2018. The amount of effort required to establish the ATC attributes and manually assign them to each individual ATC as well as development of the external analysis tool was underestimated therefore the project schedule extended an additional 45 days into January 2019. The project schedule is shown below in Figure 3.
June July August September October November December January Create ProjectWise Environment Establish ProjectWise Atributes Provide Attribute Information to IT Upload ATC Files Assign ATC Files to Environment Assign Attributes to ATCs DevelopT Training Create ProjectWise Wizard Develop RFP Language Conduct Training Figure 3: Project Schedule
10
There was no additional cost to SCDOT other than internal labor‐hours. The estimated versus actual man‐hour efforts are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Project Man‐hour Efforts Task Estimated labor‐hours Actual Labor Hours Conduct Survey / Follow up / Analysis 24 54 IT Support 16 8 DBG Support for Attribute Assignment 24 40 Manually Coding ATC Data 16 60 Develop Analysis Tool 24 40 Draft RFP language 8 8 Prepare and Conduct Training 20 30 Total 156 240
4.3 Potential Obstacles and Methods to Overcome
The most significant obstacle to the initial setup and implementation of the ATC management system was the proper assignment of attributes to each ATC. If the data associated with an ATC is inaccurate or incomplete, its utility in the system will be limited. To mitigate this obstacle moving forward, it is imperative that the DBG allots adequate time to assigning attributes to each ATC. For future ATCs where Design‐Build Proposers will be assigning attributes to ATCs during the upload process, the DBG will have to review these attributes to ensure they are assigned correctly. The
Design‐Build Engineer responsible for SCDOT’s Design‐Build Program has identified the ATC management system as a significant need and has mandated that the DBG staff make this a priority.
4.4 Resources
Dr. Keith Molenaar, Associate Dean for Research at University of Colorado’s School of
Construction Engineering Management, was a critical resource for developing this ATC Management
System. Dr. Molenaar has done extensive research in Alternative Project Delivery and Design‐Build
11 and has extensive knowledge of other State DOT processes. He was able to provide a peer review of the state survey as well as contact information for relevant personal at many of the state DOTs.
The DOT contacts from each state were resources for questions regarding ATC attributes.
Specifically, the Minnesota DOT has provided copies of their ATC tracking spreadsheets which contain the categories and subcategories that they utilize. These categories were used as a guide for the project team.
SCDOT IT employs staff members that are experts in ProjectWise. These staff members provided significant support in development tasks associated with creating the ProjectWise ATC environment and associated attributes.
4.5 Communication with Key Stakeholders
Throughout the development of the ATC Management System, communication with representative end users in the DBG was essential. DBG staff was critical in the development and assignment of ATC attributes. This system relies heavily on the software ProjectWise therefore close coordination with IT was critical to ensure long term success.
4.6 Integration into Standard Operating Procedure
The ATC management system is currently operational. The next design‐build procurement where ATCs will be allowed will begin in the spring of 2019 so no external testing of the upload process using the wizard has taken place. However, the process has been tested by members of the
DBG and no issues were experienced. The DBG discipline leads do expect that proposers may not assign the correct attributes during the upload process so checking this information will be a vital
12 step in the process. Overall, the project team has not experienced any major impacts on any standard procedures and expects full and seamless integration this Spring.
5.0 Evaluation
5.1 Evaluation of Success
Table 2 below outlines the evaluation of and determination of success.
Table 2: Success Evaluation Successful Project Goal Success Measure (Yes/No) The ATC Management System was developed utilizing ProjectWise which meets the project Provide a single location goal. ProjectWise is an established file or management system to storage program at SCDOT has been used Yes store all past, present, and successfully for storing ATC data since 2015. future ATC data. All previous ATC data has been incorporated into ProjectWise. The ATC Management system in ProjectWise Provide a variety of search, has capabilities to search, sort, and query sort, and query options historical ATC data. Engagement/Utilization of within the system to be the system can be identified as a key Yes able to retrieve historic measurement for success moving forward. ATC information quickly. This feature is fully operational and in use by the DBG. The ATC Management system in ProjectWise does not have capabilities to analyze data. Provide a storage system SCDOT plans to add a supplement to that allows for analysis of ProjectWise in 2019 that will provide these Yes ATC data to establish capabilities. As an interim step, a spreadsheet trends. has been developed that can manipulate ATC data exported from ProjectWise.
13
6.0 Summary and Recommendations
6.1 Summary
SCDOT has been utilizing ATCs in Design‐Build since 2013. Since that time, SCDOT has received over 800 ATCs and expects to receive approximately 180 new ATCs per year for the next decade. Due to outdated methods of file storage, SCDOT has not properly utilized ATCs as “data” that could be used to establish trends through analysis, aid in decision making, and influence policy.
The following project goals/benefits were established at the onset of this project. These goals were set with a larger vision to improve efficiency of the DBG and contribute to the overall SCDOT strategic plan goal of improving program delivery:
1. Provide a single location or management system to store all past, present, and future ATC
data.
2. Provide a variety of search, sort, and query options within the management system to be able
to retrieve historic ATC information quickly.
3. Provide a storage system that allows for analysis of ATC data to establish trends.
This project was successful in achieving each of these goals. Goals one and two were achieved by developing an ATC Management System in ProjectWise. Goal three was achieved by creating an
Excel spreadsheet that can analyze ATC data exported from ProjectWise.
6.2 Next Steps
SCDOT is in the process of obtaining a ProjectWise supplement called Dashboard. Dashboard will provide a system for generating statistical analyses and reports directly from ProjectWise eliminating the need to export data and run analysis in the spreadsheet created in Microsoft Excel.
14
Dashboard will make analytics available real‐time in a user friendly format that can be made available through a web link so information can be shared both internal and external stakeholders. It is recommended that Dashboard be utilized for analysis and reporting as soon as it’s available to
SCDOT.
Furthermore, the creation of the ATC management system informed the DBG of ProjectWise’s capabilities beyond simple file storage. It is possible that many other current processes could be made more efficient and informative using a similar system. Ideally, the experience that the DBG gained from this project will be used in other aspects of design‐build procurement and the SCDOT as a whole.
Lastly, many of the 50 states that were surveyed expressed interest in receiving the results of the survey. In addition, the SCDOT DBG shared this project with 13 other State DOTs at a Design‐
Build Peer Exchange in November of 2018 and had significant interest from several of the states in attendance that had previously identified an ATC Management System as a need. The project team is preparing an executive summary of this project along with a summary of the data collection effort to be distributed to all 50 state DOTs. In addition, the project team plans to develop a journal paper for consideration of publication in Transportation Research Record – Journal of the Transportation
Research Board. Finally, the project team has applied to present this research at the South Carolina
Engineers Conference and plans to apply to present at an upcoming DBIA Transportation Conference.
15
7.0 Bibliography
[1] FMI report, Pg. 44
[2] FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/about‐edc.cfm
[3] Boylston, John D; “Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects” https://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/handle/10827/17501
[4] South Carolina Department of Revenue, “Motor Fuel User Fee,” dor.sc.gov, 2018, https://dor.sc.gov/tax/motor‐fuel
[5] SCDOT Strategic Plan Overview – Goal 3 https://www.scdot.org/performance/pdf/Strategic_Plan_Overview.pdf
All reference documents cited above are provided in Appendix E.
16
Appendix A
Survey Response Data
Does your ATC management System How do you manage your ATCs during/after allow analytics to be Agency procurement? Discussion (optional) performed? They are tracked during procurement but we have We have only had one project with ATCs. Hence, we have not gotten Alabama DOT no management system. to the stage to need a database. No They are tracked during procurement but we have ARDOT no management system. No They are tracked during procurement but we have Arizona DOT no management system. No California Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have We do track ATCs from all of our design‐build projects on an excel Transportation no management system. spreadsheet. No Colorado Department of They are stored in a management database with all Transportation other ATCs from other design‐build projects. No They are tracked during procurement but we have Colorado DOT no management system. No ATCs are kept with the project files as part of the Proposers' technical proposals. The successful Proposer's technical proposal, including Connecticut Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have ATCs, becomes a part of the signed contract, which is also stored with Transportation no management system. the project files. No They are tracked during procurement but we have DDOT no management system. No
We have not used ATC's to date. Our next D‐B project will use ATC's and will advertise shortly. We do not currently have a management Delaware DOT Other system, but they will be tracked during the first procurement. No They are tracked during procurement but we have FDOT no management system. No Georgia Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have Transportation no management system. No They are stored in a management database with all Georgia DOT other ATCs from other design‐build projects. we use e‐builder to track the approval process. No They are stored in a management database with all Georgia DOT other ATCs from other design‐build projects. we use e‐builder. Hawaii Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have Transportation no management system. No They are tracked during procurement but we have Idaho Transportation department no management system. No Illinois DOT My agency does not utilize ATCs No INDOT My agency does not utilize ATCs No Iowa DOT My agency does not utilize ATCs No KDOT My agency does not utilize ATCs Kansas DOT only does Design Bid Build No
Kentucky was in the process of moving forward with its first ATC project. However, the project has been placed on hold and there has Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Other been no time schedule given for when it will move forward. No
Louisiana Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have We have only had about nine Design Build projects. We receive a few Transportation and Development no management system. ATC's, so they are fairly easy to keep up with. No They are tracked during procurement but we have MaineDOT no management system. No Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway They are stored in a management database with all Administration other ATCs from other design‐build projects. No They are tracked during procurement but we have Maryland Transportation Authority no management system. No Hard copies are kept in a confidential file during procurement. Massachusetts Department of Approved ATC files that were submitted with Technical Proposals are Transportation Other archived. No They are tracked during procurement but we have Michigan DOT no management system. No
Primarily #1. I store ATCs, both during and after procurement, on a projected drive. There is a project‐specific folder, but the drive contains ATCs from all projects. I would not call it a highly‐formal Minnesota DOT Other management database, however. No Mississippi Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have Transportation no management system. No Missouri Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have Transportation no management system. No They are tracked during procurement but we have Missouri DOT no management system. No Montana Department of Transportation My agency does not utilize ATCs No They are tracked during procurement but we have NCDOT no management system. No NDDOT My agency does not utilize ATCs No They are stored in a management database with all Nebraska Dept of Tranportation other ATCs from other design‐build projects. This is the current plan. NDOT has not completed the first DB project. No Nevada Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have Transportation no management system. No Submitted ATC's typically are related to a deviation from a project specific requirement. Approved ATC's which introduce new New York State Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have specifications or protocol are studied and evaluated for potential Transportation no management system. adoption by the Department for utilization in future projects. No They are tracked during procurement but we have NHDOT no management system. No At this time, the NJDOT does not have State legislation in place to do NJDOT My agency does not utilize ATCs design/build procurement. No NMDOT has only done a few design‐build projects state wide. None NMDOT Other have been done in my District. No They are tracked during procurement but we have ODOT no management system. No Ohio DOT While they are kept, they are not kept in an official database. They ohio dot Other are all available upon request. No Oklahoma DOT My agency does not utilize ATCs Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation My agency does not utilize ATCs Rhode Island Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have Transportation no management system. If we use a stipend, then we will store the other ATC's. No SDDOT My agency does not utilize ATCs No They are tracked during procurement but we have State of Alaska DOT&PF no management system. No They are stored in a management database with all Tennessee DOT other ATCs from other design‐build projects. No During procurement ATC's are tracked and kept as hard copy at the secure location (district and division offices). After award, the ATC's Texas Department of are uploaded to our SharePoint secure electronic management Transportation Other database for the project. No They are stored in a management database with all UDOT other ATCs from other design‐build projects. No They are tracked during procurement but we have ATC's are filed with other project documentation for that specific Vermont Agency of Transportation no management system. project. No Virginia Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have Transportation no management system. No Washington State Department of They are tracked during procurement but we have A management system, in the form of a database, is under Transportation no management system. development No Wisconsin DOT My agency does not utilize ATCs No We store our ATCs in ProjectWise project by project. We haven't WVDOH Other seen a need to catalog them into a group as of yet. No Wyoming DOT Other Wyoming does not use Design‐Build No Appendix B
ATC Management System User Guide
ATC Management System User Guide Module 1: How to Perform a Search/Sort/Query?
Search Builder (simplest, useful for getting most types of Data) 1. Click on the binoculars (search button) dropdown arrow on the toolbar, go to search builder
2. Choose ATC view 3. Criterion Type: Environment Attribute 4. Environment: ATC 5. Attribute: whatever is being searched 6. Value: input desired value or use drop down box
7. Click "Add Criteria"
8. Click apply, and the search will run.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 1: How to Perform a Search/Sort/Query?
9. It is possible to save a search to bypass this process for commonly searched information. This can be done by clicking "Saved Search" and "Save As". Then you can save any search under the personal file with a name you give it.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 1: How to Perform a Search/Sort/Query?
Search Form (for searching for specific sub‐disciplines) 1. Click on the binoculars (search button) dropdown arrow, go to form builder
2. Under Folder, change environment name to "ATC"
3. Make sure "Find in the Environment only" is checked.
4.
5. Click on Attributes tab 6. In Sub Discipline or Sub Sub Discipline, enter the EXACT term you are looking for. This will return any ATC with that sub or sub sub discipline, regardless of discipline.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 1: How to Perform a Search/Sort/Query?
7.
8. Any other information can be entered or chosen from a dropdown to narrow results if desired. 9. Click Apply and the search will appear in the larger window 10. Saved searches operate the same as with the search builder.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 1: How to Perform a Search/Sort/Query?
Keyword search (for a quick search of a certain term or phrase) 1. Make sure view is ATC 2. In the search bar in the toolbar, click on the magnifying glass in the toolbar
3. Click settings in the dropdown 4. Make sure "Search in datasource" is checked
5. Close settings 6. Click magnifying glass again, and select "full text search" 7. Type any key term or phrase and press enter
8. There will be a long list of files, so sort by an attribute exclusive to ATCs and the ATCs will show at the top of the list. Unsorted:
Sorted by Stage:
ATC Management System User Guide Module 1: How to Perform a Search/Sort/Query?
ATC Management System User Guide Module 2: How to Upload an ATC?
In the past, ATCs were dropped into consultant folders as one folder that contained all ATCs and attachments. The new ATC database will now require each ATC to be uploaded separately, so that information can be given on each one. This tutorial will guide you through this process.
It is crucial to the database that each ATC be associated with only 1 document in ProjectWise. This will aid in review and in organization of the ATCs. As a result, each ATC submittal form and all of its attachments will now be need to be contained in one pdf, as shown below.
All ATCs will be placed into the ATC folder Under the project folder. The contents of this folder reside in the ATC environment, which will allow ATC information to be captured and displayed in ProjectWise.
To start the upload process, make sure that ProjectWise is in the ATC view. This will allow you to see the information that you input.
Next, click “Tools” at the top of the screen, and then click “Wizard Manager” Note: In the Wizard Manager, you can set the wizard as default, set no wizard as default, or remove the default. You will be prompted to choose between the two each time you upload a file if no default is set.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 2: How to Upload an ATC?
While you can set the default at this time, the only place to remove the default or change a previously set default is in the Wizard manager
In the wizard manager, click on ”Advanced Wizard”, then click “Properties”. It is recommended that you have the boxes checked as shown below. These settings will save time by not showing unnecessary pages.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 2: How to Upload an ATC?
Now, drag your ATC into the ATC file. The wizard selection screen will pop up if you have not set a default wizard setting. Choose “Advanced Wizard” and click okay. You can also set Advanced wizard as your default before pressing OK. If the file uploads with no popup, “no wizard” is set as the default, and will need to be changed in the Wizard Manager.
The wizard will appear as shown below. Fill each box with appropriate information (some have dropdowns for ease of use). Be sure to click “generate” beside the serial number box. This will ensure that this ATC file is labeled as the newest version, which is useful for resubmittals. Click “Next”.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 2: How to Upload an ATC?
On this screen, some information will be filled in already from the first screen. Fill in the fields that are filled below. The fields left blank will be populated by SCDOT. Be sure to use the dropdowns when available to ensure consistency. Click “Next” Note: SUB STAGE will always default to “In Review,” as an ATC is inherently in review when it is being uploaded.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 2: How to Upload an ATC?
The ATC should now be in ProjectWise, associated with all of the information entered in the wizard, and titled using this information. Attributes can be edited by highlighting them, pressing the spacebar, and then clicking the “Attributes” tab. Note: information from the first page of the wizard is not editable, as it is associated with the name of the file.
Repeat this process for all ATCs. For reference, below is a list of each Attribute that is required along with a brief description when necessary.
Project ID Lead Contractor Stage‐ (PATC or FATC, standing for Preliminary ATC or Final ATC) ATC Number‐ (ATC number from submittal form) Serial Number‐ denotes version of ATC submittal Lead Designer Description (of ATC) Sub Stage‐ denotes response for the ATC, or if it is still in review Discipline‐ denotes main discipline for the ATC
ATC Management System User Guide Module 3: How to Modify the Attributes of an ATC?
1. Highlight the ATC you wish to edit. 2. Press Spacebar. The following screen should pop up.
3. Click on the Attributes tab 4. All Attributes can be edited except for Lead Contractor and stage, since these provide the file name.
ATC Management System User Guide Module 3: How to Modify the Attributes of an ATC?
The usefulness of the System is proportional to the quality of information put into it. If an ATC can be assigned another category or a lower level category that will better describe it, then it should be assigned during review. However, if an ATC does not fit into a specific subcategory, there is no reason to assign it one. 5. After changes are made, click save, and then close. Alternatively, you can navigate to other ATCs within this window using the arrow buttons in the bottom right‐hand corner. Make sure that the updated information is saved before closing.
Appendix C
RFP Template Changes
1.1 Formal Alternative Technical Concepts
1.1.1 Submittal of Formal ATCs
Each formal ATC submittal shall include the following.
Description: A detailed description and schematic drawings of the configuration of the ATC or other appropriate descriptive information (including, if appropriate, specifications, construction tolerances, special provisions, proposed bridge types, product details, and a traffic operational analysis). Drawings shall clearly indicate what is specifically proposed for this project. Samples/Examples from other projects may be used but specific commitments shall be identified for this project (i.e. member sizes, material requirements, etc. Specification and special provisions shall be supplied if the ATC covers materials, products, etc. not commonly used by SCDOT and not covered in the RFP package or references. Traffic analysis shall provide adequate information to clearly demonstrate the impacts of the proposal on the project and shall contain summaries where appropriate to aid in review. Usage: Locations where and an explanation of how the ATC would be used on the Project Deviations: Clearly identify the sections and page numbers in the RFP which is deviated and requires submission of an ATC. Include an explanation of the nature of the proposed deviation and a request for approval of such deviations or a determination that the ATC is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. If consistent with the RFP, please provide the sections and page numbers in the RFP which address the concept. Justification: Justify use of the ATC and why the deviations from the requirements of the RFP should be allowed Schedule: Proposed changes to the Project schedule if applicable. If early delivery is proposed, proposer shall clearly define any proposed liquidated damages or effect to contract if early date is not met. Impacts: Identify potential impacts on vehicular traffic, safety, community, utilities, right of way, and the environment History: A detailed description of other projects where the ATC has been used under comparable circumstances, the success of such usage, and names and telephone numbers of project owners that can confirm such statements Risks: A description of added risks to SCDOT and other persons/entity associated with implementing the ATC Costs: An estimate of the impact of the ATC on the Proposal Price and the ATC implementation costs to SCDOT, FHWA, Contractor, or other person during construction, maintenance and operations Quality: A description of how the ATC is equal or better in quality and performance than the requirements of the RFP Operations & Maintenance: Any changes in operation or maintenance requirements associated with the ATC.
*Changes Highlighted in Yellow
The technical response to each item outlined above shall be provided in the Formal ATC Submittal Form. Text and supporting submissions shall be limited to the form and shall not be provided as attachments. All drawing details, plan sheets, charts, tables, graphs, specifications, special provisions, manufacturer data sheets, and supporting reports/analyses should be provided within the submittal form. A maximum number of 15 formal ATCs may be submitted to SCDOT by the Proposer for consideration.
All formal ATCs shall be submitted electronically by uploading to ProjectWise . Each ATC shall be contained in a single pdf document, which includes the Formal ATC form. The Formal ATC Submittal Form can be downloaded from the SCDOT Design-Build website under the SCDOT Design-Build Documents and Standard Forms Section. The document will not upload without entering the required attribute information.
http://www.scdot.org/business/design-build.aspx.
The Proposer shall submit formal ATCs in accordance with the Milestone schedule. All information being exchanged between Proposers and SCDOT shall occur only on the specific dates shown, unless otherwise directed by the SCDOT POC.
*Changes Highlighted in Yellow 1.1.1 Submittal of Preliminary ATCs
Preliminary concepts are intended to be an informal inquiry by the Proposer to explore a concept and a quick method by SCDOT to review and comment on potential development of ATCs prior to investment of time and resources by the Proposer. Preliminary concepts shall present a Description, Deviations, and a range of Costs, as further described in Section 3.8.1. Other items identified in Section 3.8.1 can be provided, but are not required. The amount of information provided shall be constrained to the boxes provided in the Preliminary ATC Submittal Form. SCDOT will allow one single tabloid sized attachment (11” x 17”) for detailed drawings or sketches. Submission of preliminary concepts does not change or extend the submission deadline of Formal ATCs.
Proposers shall be limited to one package of preliminary concepts and the total number of preliminary concepts shall not exceed 30. If more than one preliminary concept on the same topic has been received from multiple Proposers, SCDOT has the right to revise the RFP to include that concept as an addendum to the RFP.
All preliminary ATCs shall be submitted electronically by uploading to ProjectWise. Each ATC shall be contained in a single pdf document, which includes the Preliminary ATC form. The Preliminary ATC Submittal Form can be downloaded from the SCDOT Design-Build website under the SCDOT Design-Build Documents and Standard Forms Section. The document will not upload without entering the required attribute information.
http://www.scdot.org/business/design-build.aspx.
The Proposer shall submit Preliminary ATCs for review in accordance with the Milestone Schedule. All Preliminary ATC information being exchanged between Proposers and SCDOT shall occur only on the specific dates shown, unless otherwise directed by the SCDOT POC.
*Changes Highlighted in Yellow
Appendix D
ATC Analytics Proof of Concept
Final ATCs Sorted by Response Given
7%
37% Addendum Approved Not An ATC Not Approved 51%
5% Final ATCs Recieved Sorted by Discipline 2%
1% 16% 8%
Administration Geotechnical 21% Hydrology Pavement 24% Roadway Structures Traffic
28% Final Roadway ATCs Sorted by Response Given
5%
34%
Addendum Approved Not An ATC Not Approved 55%
6% Final ATCs Sorted by Discipline and Response Given 90
80
70 28
60 23
5 50 25 Not Approved 3 Not An ATC Approved 40 Addendum 24
30
45 1 8 40 20 32
4
10 19 9 2 1 4 4 5 4 5 3 0 2 Administration Geotechnical Hydrology Pavement Roadway Structures Traffic Final ATCs Sorted by Year and Response Given
90
80
70
28 60
50 11 Not Approved 25 4 Not An ATC 3 40 Approved Addendum 3 30
36 25 10 31 20 1 31 8 3 10 2 18 1 9 10 11 11 5 9 0 1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Appendix E
Reference Documents
[1] FMI Report, Pgs. 39-47 [2] FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative [3] Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects [4] Motor Fuel User Fee [5] SCDOT Strategic Plan Overview-Goal 3
[1] FMI Report, Pgs. 39‐47
Highway/Street and Water/Wastewater Market Market Sizing Construction spending in highway/street and water/wastewater is anticipated to grow at an annual growth of 4% over the forecast period. Total U.S. highway/street and water/wastewater construction put in place Billions of dollars Source(s): FMI
$140 15%
$130 $128 $130 $127 $127 $123 $121 $120 $121 10% $120 $117
$110 5.7% 5% $100 3.3% 3.0% 2.0% 2.3% $90 1.2% 0.9% 0% Year-over-year growth Year-over-year -1.1% $80
ConstructionPut in Place; Billionsof dollars $70 -5% -5.6%
$60
$50 -10% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* 2018* 2019* 2020* 2021*
FMI Corporation Copyright 2018 41 Design-build construction spending in the highway/street segment will account for the majority of spending over the forecast period. Market size comparison Distribution of market Total combined spend, Rollup, 2018-2021 US$ CPiP spending, 2018-2021 Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources
Total U.S. Construction Put in Place (CPiP) Water/Wastewater, 17% $5.4 Trillion
U.S. highway/street and water/wastewater Put in Place (CPiP) $512 Billion Highway/Street Segment breakout Segment ,83%
Design-build CPiP New England, South Atlantic, $203 Billion 3% ESC, 5% 19%
WNC, 8%
Mid-Atlantic, 10% WSC, 16%
Market breakout Market ENC, 11%
Pacific, 16% Mountain, 11%
FMI Corporation Copyright 2018 42 Design-build spending in highway/street and water/wastewater is anticipated to grow 21% from 2018 to 2021. Design-build highway/street and water/wastewater construction put in place Billions of dollars Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources
$60 10% $56 $53 9%
$50 $49 $46 8% 7.6% $43 7.3% $41 7.0% 7% $40 $38 6.8% 6.5% $36 $34 6% 5.7% 5.4% $30 5% 4.9%
4% growth Year-over-year
$20 3% ConstructionPut in Place; Billionsof dollars
2% $10
1%
$- 0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* 2018* 2019* 2020* 2021*
FMI Corporation Copyright 2018 43 Design-build is anticipated to yield a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.7% over the 2017 to 2021 period. Distribution of spending over forecast period Billions of dollars Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources
$60
+$1.6 $56.0 $55 +$12
$50
$45 $42.9
$40
$35 2017-2021 CAGR: 6.7% Outlook for design-build design-build for (Billions) spending Outlook $30
$25$0 2017 Highway/street Water/wastewater 2021
FMI Corporation Copyright 2018 44 Design-build continues to gain share as a delivery method of choice in the highway/street and water/wastewater segments. Design-build as a percentage of total highway/street and water/wastewater construction spending Billions of dollars Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources
2018-2021 2013-2017 CPiP: $512B CPiP: $613B
Design-build 31% Design-build Other 40% 60%
Other 69%
*Other includes CMGC/CMAR, design-bid-build **Please see appendix for specific segment breakout FMI Corporation Copyright 2018 45 The South Atlantic census division is anticipated to yield the highest growth rate over the 2018- 2021 period. U.S. highway/street and water/wastewater design-build construction put in place by census division Billions of dollars Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources
Billions CAGR of current dollars 2018e 2021f (18-21)
Mountain $5.19 $6.29 6.6% WEST Pacific $7.31 $8.98 7.1%
East North $4.97 $6.13 7.2% Central
West North
MIDWEST $3.92 $4.77 6.7% Central
New England $1.34 $1.59 5.9%
Middle Atlantic $4.74 $5.43 4.6% NORTHEAST
South Atlantic $8.78 $10.99 7.8%
East South $2.13 $2.60 6.9% Central SOUTH
West South $7.54 $8.84 5.4% Central
U.S. Total $45.93 $55.62 6.6%
FMI Corporation Copyright 2018 46 Design-build construction spending in the highway/street and water/wastewater is anticipated to yield favorable annual growth rates over the forecast period. Distribution of forecast spending by segment Distribution of market Combined CPiP spending, 2018-2021 CPiP spending, 2018, 2021 Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources Source(s): FMI analysis of multiple sources
Water/Wastewater $9 CAGR: 4.8%
Water/Wastewater 17% $8
$7
Highway/Street $46 CAGR: 7.0%
Highway/street $38 83% $28
20141232018 2021 Total spend 2018-2021: $203B $35.5B $45.9B $55.6B
FMI Corporation Copyright 2018 47 [2] FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/about-edc.cfm [3] Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects
•
Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects
John D. Boylston, P.E. South Carolina Department of Transportation
Certified Public Manager Class of 2014
March 3, 2014 •
• • Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects
I. Introduction/Problem Statement
a. Design Build as a project delivery method in South Carolina
The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) is the agency in South
Carolina charged with the construction and maintenance of the state's primary and
secondary road system, which is the fourth largest in the United States and totals over
41,000 miles. The traditional procurement method for construction contracts that the
SCDOT obtains is the Design-Bid-Build method wherein the project is designed, bid, and
constructed in separate, consecutive steps. SCDOT procures essentially all of its • construction contracts using the Design-Bid-Build method. The Design-Bid-Build method affords a repeatable, known process that is familiar to both the agency and contractors, is
widely accepted across the industry, and is appropriate for the large majority of standard
projects. A drawback to the Design-Bid-Build process is the time required to take a project
from inception to completion. From the time a project is approved, surveyed, designed and
permitted to the end of construction can take upwards of six years. In addition, the
designer, bidder, and contractor are three separate entities and are not tied to each
contractually or philosophically and there is no over-arching common goal for the project's
completion .
John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 2 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects • There is another method of project delivery in the SCOOT's toolbox that can be used when a project's size, complexity, or urgency indicates that it would be a good candidate for
an alternative delivery method. This alternative delivery method is known as the Design-
Build method of procurement. In the Design-Build method, the project is designed and
constructed in parallel, concurrent efforts. The designer and the contractor are both
members of the same team and are therefore in constant contact as the project progresses.
They are able to work in concert and combine their respective expertise to come up with
the most efficient, cost effective approach to completing the project.
The SCOOT has used the Design-Build method of procurement for major highway and
bridge projects since 1998 with the Conway Bypass project (SC Route 22) in Harry County
• being the SCOOT's initial foray into that particular form of procurement. Between the years
1998 and 2010, the SCOOT's approach regarding the use of Design-Build was hit and miss
at best. Projects were not identified as candidates for Design-Build early in the project
development phase, were haphazardly chosen, and were developed in different areas of the
agency resulting in a fragmented, inconsistent approach.
In 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) implemented an initiative known
as "Every Day Counts" 1. Every Day Counts is an effort to encourage improvements in
overall processes but specifically in project delivery and the time associated with
completing traditional highway projects. As a result of the Federal government's initiative,
and working in close coordination with the FHWA, the SCOOT laid out its goals in an Action
1 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/ John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 3 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects • Plan 2 and also incorporated its vision for Design-Build into the agency's Strategic Management Plan3.
b. Definition of Alternative Technical Concepts
The Design-Build method of project procurement affords both the owner (SCOOT) and
the contractor greater flexibility in how the project is pursued. The greatest flexibility is
realized when a practice known as Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC) is used within a
Design Build procurement. ATC's allow the SCDOT to take advantage of value engineering
principles in a pre-bid scenario rather than through change orders or other contractual
changes. In a design build project, instead of traditional construction drawings, specific
• requirements for the project are laid for each of the prospective contractors on which to
base their bid for the project. These requirements are the criteria the contractor must use
to design the project and depending on the type of project can include such requirements
as a specific type of interchange, the type of pavement to use, a minimum height for a
bridge, or a specific construction method. When ATC's are not used in design build
procurement, the contractor must adhere to all criteria as defined in the scope of the
project without any deviation. Deviation from the required scope can lead to the contractor
being deemed non-responsive and disqualified from the procurement.
2 http://www.scdot.org/inside/pdfs/SC EDC action plan.pdf 3 http://www.scdot.org/inside/pdfs/smp 2014.pdf John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 4 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects • When ATC's are used, contractors are able to think and work "outside the box" while remaining responsive to the Request for Proposals (RFP) and eligible to pursue the project.
Their proposed changes to the requirements must result in a product that is equal to or
better than that specified in the requirements of the RFP. The process by which the
contractor may propose an ATC is detailed in the RFP. An example from a recent SCDOT
design build is included in Appendix 1 and details the process by which the contractor first
proposes an ATC and how the SCDOT reviews and evaluates the ATC and ultimately either
approves or disapproves the proposal. This process is done completely confidentially and
one-on-one with each contractor. In the process, the SCDOT and the taxpayers of South
Carolina are able to fully realize the expertise and innovation that multiple teams can bring
to a project. The successful contractor is able to incorporate his ideas and designs into the
project outside of the original project scope. The unsuccessful contractors are paid a
stipend and their ideas then become the intellectual property of SCDOT and the SCDOT is
then able, if appropriate, to incorporate those ideas into the current project and future
projects as well.
The SCDOT to date has used ATC's on three completed design build and ATC's are being
evaluated on two other projects that are currently being actively procured. To date, an
evaluation of ATC's effectiveness has not been performed and is the aim of this project.
Through a cataloging of ATC's submitted and an analysis of their effect on bid prices, this
project will aim to determine if the use of ATC's by SCDOT has been of benefit to the agency
thus far and whether going forward, the practice is a worthwhile tool in the design build
John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 5 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects
toolbox. The Transportation Research Board4 is an excellent source for further reading on
• both the Design Build method of procurement and the incorporation of ATC's into project
proposals.
II. Data Collection
The data for this evaluation was readily available as the subject projects were all
developed very recently in the author's office and the author was the engineer responsible
for the projects. The following tables show all ATC's submitted for the three projects to
date that have employed them. The green shaded entries show ATC's submitted by
contractors that were eventually the successful bidders and were subsequently awarded
• the project. The goal in collecting this data is to, for the first time, examine all of the design
build projects to date that have used ATC's and to determine what, if any, the impact of
implementing ATC's has had on the bids submitted.
Table 1
Interstate 26 Widening and Rehabilitation (Lexington and Calhoun Counties) Daily Cost of Project- $10,000/day Estimated Cost Schedule Approved/ Contractor Description of A TC Impact Impact Disapproved AC/Boggs Slope Steepening ($110,000) None Approved AC/Boggs Lane Closure Deviation ($100,000) (200 days) Not Approved AC/Boggs Liquid Asphalt Binder ($15/ton LAB) None Approved McCarthy Pavement Design ($650,000) None Approved United Pavement Design N/A* N/A* Approved United Liquid Asphalt Binder N/A* None Approved * Contractor indicated both time and cost saving but did not quantify.
4 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/NCHRP20-07(172) FR.pdf John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 6 CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects • Table 2 Interstate 95/US 301 Interchange Improvements (Orangeburg County) Daily Cost of Project- $7,500 I day
Estimated Cost A Schedule Approved/ Contractor Description of ATC Delta Impact Disapproved CR Jackson Ramp Re-alignment ($300,000) Positive Not Approved CR Jackson Long Term Lane Closure N/A* N/A* Approved CRJackson Mainline Pavement Design N/A* N/A* Not Approved CRJackson Asphalt Shoulders N/A* N/A* Not Approved CR Jackson Modified Base Course N/A* None Not Approved Lane Typical Section Revision ($400,000) (21 days) Not Approved Lane Collector-Distributor Road ($200,000) (40 days) Approved Lane Long Term Lane Closure ($450,000) (270 days) Approved Lane Short Term Ramp Closure ($40,000) (14 days) Approved McCarthy SC Rte 6 Re-alignment ($350,000) (60 days) Approved McCarthy Interchange Design ($2,500,000) (90 days) Not Approved McCarthy Bridge Design Revision ($75,000) None Approved McCarthy Bottomless Culvert None (360 days) Approved5 McCarthy Flat Slab Bridge None (360 days) Approved Superior Bottomless Culvert ($150,000) (360 days) Approved Superior Bridge Design Deviation ($65,000) None Not Approved United Interchange Design ($4,000,000) (30 days) Not Approved • * Contractor indicated both time and cost saving but did not quantify.
(This section left blank intentionally.)
5 Appendix 2 includes the entire ATC and is an example of an ATC that does not necessarily directly reduce cost but its effect can indirectly affect cost by significantly reducing schedule and reducing environmental impacts . John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 7 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects
Table 3
• SC 41 Bridge Replacement over Wando River (Berkeley and Charleston Counties) Daily Cost of Project- $7,500 I day Estimated Schedule Approved/ Contractor Description of ATC Cost Impact Disapproved Archer Seismic Dampers N/A* None No ATC needed Archer Access Road Re-alignment ($2,000,000) None Approved Archer Alternative Load Test ($20,000) None Approved Archer Elimination of Access Road ($1,800,000) None Approved PCL Flat Slab Bridge N/A* None ATC Abandonedt PCL Access Road Re-location N/A* None Approved PCL Lightweight Concrete N/A* None Approved PCL Elimination of Anchor Bolts N/A* None Approved PCL Property Access Change N/A* Positive ATC Abandonedt PCL Alternate Fender System N/A* Positive Not Approved United Concrete Alternative ($100,000) (45 days) Approved United Access Rd. Alternative ($4,000,000) (120 days) Approved United Access Rd. Alternative ($2,000,000) [90 days) Approved * Contractor indicated both time and cost saving but did not quantify. t Contractor ultimately abandoned pursuit of this ATC as it was apparent it would not be approved and the effort to convince SCDOT of its effectiveness • was not worth the effort in their opinion. As indicated in the example ATC's provided in Appendix 2 and in the ATC Guidelines
in Appendix 1, there are more evaluation measures of an ATC than those tabulated above.
The cost and schedule impacts are the most subjective and quantitative measures to
evaluate and were therefore chosen over the more subjective, harder to quantify measures.
III. Data Analysis
The primary analysis for this effort will focus on the amount of dollars that bids
were actually reduced in the case of successful bidders and the amount of potential
reduction that may have been realized had the contractor been successful in his bid. A
John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 8 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects
secondary evaluation is the impact on schedule which ultimately translates to dollars in the
• form of a per day cost of the project which is specified for each project.
In the case of the I-26 project (Table 1), the successful bidder submitted the most
ATC's of any of the other bidders and tied with one other bidder for number of ATC's
approved. The successful bidder was able to reduce his bid by approximately $400,000 by
implementing the two approved ATC's. That same bidder also devised an innovative
method for accessing the median construction zone which reduced the schedule
significantly and the combination of the two made for a successful bid.
In the case of the I-95/US 301 project (Table 2), the successful bidder and one other
• each submitted five ATC's but the successful bidder easily had the highest number of
approved ATC's. The successful bidder was able to realize both direct cost reduction and
significant schedule reduction through the implementation of these ATC's. At a daily cost of
$7,500/day, a potential 360 day reduction in the schedule translates into a $2,700,000
reduction in the cost of the project.
In the case of the SC 41 project (Table 3), the successful bidder had the most ATC's
submitted and tied with the other two bidders on the number of approved ATC's. An
interesting difference in this project and the first two is that the successful bidder provided
the least amount of information regarding cost and schedule reductions. A vague statement
that the ATC would generate reductions was the only information provided. For future
projects, some consideration should be given to a more stringent requirement for bidders
John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 9 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects • to provide more specific cost information in their ATC submittal. This requirement would aid evaluators of the ATC and provide SCDOT with better historical data.
There are additional factors that are evaluated when an ATC is being proposed. In
addition to an overall justification for the ATC, the following are also evaluated but not
quantified as the dollars and time are quantified: an assessment of the environmental
impacts, evaluation of potential risk to the SCDOT, overall quality of the materials, long
term operation and maintenance cost for the SCDOT.
IV. Implementation Plan
• To further track and continue to evaluate ATe's and Design Build, ProjectWise6 a
paperless document management system will be phased into use for all future design build
projects. A function within ProjectWise and one that is crucial to the relevance of this
project, is a searchable database that will catalog all ATC's and will be maintained for
recordkeeping and research purposes.
a. Action Steps Needed
The first action steps are currently being undertaken as this report is finalized. The
group tasked with delivering design build projects for the SCDOT is implementing the use
of ProjectWise for the pre-construction phase on the US 701 Bridge Replacement project in
6 http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Products/projectwise+project+team+collaboration/ John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 10 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects • Harry County, South Carolina. The next step will be to create and populate the searchable ATC database.
b. Timeframe and Cost
The phasing in of ProjectWise has already begun and will be completed within the
next year. The software and personnel are currently in place therefore the only remaining
cost to the agency is the time of the personnel who will be engaged in this ongoing effort.
As it will be part of their everyday job duties, no additional costs to the agency are
anticipated . • c. Potential Obstacles Potential obstacles include but are not limited to the following:
~ Decreased momentum for the use of Design Build within the agency. The
creation of a dedicated group to deliver design build projects has been
discussed but as of the present, no action has been taken.
~ Loss of support from upper management to continue the payment of
stipends. Non-payment of stipends would in turn hinder the use of ATC's.
~ Decrease in funding for large projects .
John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 11 • CPM 2014 Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects • d. Potential Resources
No additional resources are needed in the short term. In the long term, the SCOOT
should continue to pursue the creation of a dedicated design build unit as these projects
take a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of SCOOT personnel.
e. Communication with Stakeholders
Stakeholders include the contracting community, both consultants and contractors,
SCOOT management, SCOOT Commission and the travelling public. The contracting
community is kept informed through the AGC/ ACEC Joint Design Build Sub-committee
where these and many other topics related to design build are discussed and evaluated. • The SCOOT Commission is briefed on mega-projects by SCOOT staff when requested. The travelling public is informed through the SCOOT Design Build website7 and through the
public involvement process (public hearings) for each project.
f. Integration into Standard Operating Procedure
The integration into Standard Operating Procedure is already taking place. When
ProjectWise is used from project inception through construction, the integration will be
complete. ATC's are already part of the standard design build process and should continue
to be barring any of the obstacles mentioned previously.
7 http://www.scdot.org/doing/constructionletting DesignBuild.aspx John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 12 • CPM 2014 • Alternative Technical Concepts and Design Build Projects V. Evaluation Method
As discussed earlier, the harder to quantify aspects of an ATC should be further
evaluated and analyzed in conjunction with the data presented in this report. One
possibility is the creation of a scoring matrix for the remaining categories much like other
parts of the design build procurement are handled. A scoring matrix would allow
ProjectWise to categorize ATC's based on their scores and overall quality. The ProjectWise
database will be useful for the continued monitoring of the overall program and as a
reference as additional projects are pursued and the evaluation of new ATC's is
undertaken .
• VI. Summary and Recommendations
From a strictly quantitative standpoint, it is apparent that the use of ATC's has had a
positive impact on design build project bottom lines and schedules, thus benefitting the
taxpayers of South Carolina. The more qualitative, subjective categories have not been
evaluated properly to date but should be to fully realize the effect the innovative ideas
borne out of ATC's have on transportation projects. Once these innovations are more fully
evaluated and understood, the SCDOT can incorporate the most valuable ones into future
design build projects, thus freeing the contractors to pursue even more innovative and cost
effective designs .
John D. Boylston, P.E. Page 13 • CPM 2014 •
APPENDIX 1 Example of ATC Guidelines
•
• the PROPOSER the opportunity to confidentially discuss the contents of his proposal with SCDOT personnel. Preliminary Concepts may be discussed during the Confidential One-on-One • Meetings. SCDOT will determine if questions submitted to or asked at the one-on-one meetings are considered confidential. No additional time will be allowed to research answers. Nothing discussed at the one-on-one meetings shall change the requirements in the RFP. SCDOT will answer the questions at the meeting verbally if possible. Verbal responses are for information only and are not binding. If necessary, written responses that are determined to be of a non confidential nature will be provided in an addendum to the RFP. Alternative Technical Concepts An Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) is a confidential request by a Proposer to modify a contract requirement, specifically for that Proposer, prior to the Proposal due date. The A TC process provides an opportunity for design-build proposals to promote innovation, find the best solutions, and to maintain flexibility in the procurement process. ATC's are evaluated for approval or denial by SCDOT within the deadline set forth in the RFP Milestone Schedule. In order to be approved, an ATC must be deemed, in SCOOT's sole discretion, to provide a project that is "equal or better" on an overall basis than the project would be without the proposed ATC. Concepts that simply delete scope, lower performance requirements, lower standards, conflict with environmental commitments, or reduce contract requirements are not acceptable as ATC's. SCDOT reserves the right in its sole discretion to reject any A TC. 1. Submittal of ATCs: a. Preliminary Concepts: Preliminary concepts may be submitted that present a description adequate for SCOOT to assess the benefits of the • concept. Preliminary concepts may be submitted by email from the Design Build Team Project Manager to the SCDOT Point of Contact and are intended to be an informal inquiry by the Proposer to explore a concept and a quick method by SCDOT to review and comment on potential development of A TC prior to investment of time and resources by the Proposer. Submission of preliminary concepts does not change or extend the submission deadline of formal A TCs. SCDOT reserves the right to ask PROPOSER to clarify its email. If a preliminary concept receives a favorable response from SCOOT, Proposer can elect to submit a formal A TC in accordance with these procedures. A favorable response by SCDOT in no way guarantees that the concept will become an approved A TC. The favorable response may be subject to conditions. A maximum number of twenty-five (25) Preliminary Concepts may be submitted to SCDOT by the PROPOSER for consideration. PROPOSER shall be limited to two packages ofPreliminary Concepts and the total number of Preliminary Concepts shall not exceed twenty (20). If more than one Preliminary Concept has been received on the same topic, SCDOT has the right to revise the RFP to include that concept as an addendum to the RFP.
b. A TC Identification: ATC will be submitted by the Proposer and evaluated by SCDOT as set forth in the RFP Milestone Schedule. All A TCs shall be REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Interstate 85 and Interstate 385 Interchange Improvements File No. 23 .038111 , Federal Aid Project No. fM23(009) Greenville County, South Carolina Page 6 of26 submitted in writing to the Project Manager identified in the RFP with a cover letter clearly identifying the submittal as a request for review of an • ATC under this RFP. If the Proposer does not clearly designate its submittal as an A TC, the submission will not be treated as an A TC by SCOOT.
c. A maximum number of ten (10) ATCs may be submitted to SCDOT by the PROPOSER for consideration.
2. Contents of ATC Submittal: Each A TC submittal shall include one (1) electronic and one (1) hard-copy and shall include the following:
a. Description: A detailed description and schematic drawings of the configuration of the ATC or other appropriate descriptive information (including, if appropriate, specifications, construction tolerances, special provisions, proposed bridge types, product details, and a traffic operational analysis);
b. Usage: Locations where and an explanation of how the ATC would be used on the Project;
c . Deviations: List in table format, all references to any requirements of the RFP or to any requirements of the Contract Documents that are inconsistent with the proposed A TC. Include an explanation of the nature • of the proposed deviation and a request for approval of such deviations or a determination that the A TC is consistent with the requirements of the RFP;
d. Justification: Justify use of the ATC and why the deviations from the requirements ofthe RFP should be allowed;
e. Schedule: Proposed changes to the project schedule if applicable;
f. Impacts: Identify potential impacts on vehicular traffic, safety, community, utilities, right of way and the environment;
g. History: A detailed description of other projects where the ATC has been used under comparable circumstances, the success of such usage, and names and telephone numbers of project owners that can confirm such statements;
h. Risks: A description of added risks to SCOOT and other persons associated with implementing the A TC;
I. Costs: An estimate of the impact of the ATC on the Proposal Price and the A TC implementation costs to SCOOT, FHW A, CONTRACTOR, or other person during construction, maintenance and operations; REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Interstate 85 and Interstate 385 Interchange Improvements • File No. 23.038 111 , Federal Aid Project No. IM23(009) Greenville County, South Carolina Page 7 of26 J. Quality: A description of how the A TC is equal or better in quality and • performance than the requirements of the RFP; k. Operations & Maintenance: Any changes in operation or maintenance requirements associated with the A TC,
3. Review of ATCs:
a. Fourteen Day Review: SCOOT will review each A TC submitted within fourteen (14) calendar days of ATC receipt.
b. More information Needed: If within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the A TC SCOOT needs more information to determine whether or not the A TC will be approved or not approved, SCOOT will submit written questions to the PROPOSER and/or request a one-on-one meeting in order to better understand the details of the formal ATC.
1. Questions: SCOOT may submit written questions to the PROPOSER within seven calendar (7) days of receipt of the A TC. PROPOSER has three (3) calendar days to remit answers. Within four (4) calendar days of receipt of the answers, SCOOT shall respond to the A TC.
II. One-on-One Meetings: A TC meeting may be scheduled by SCOOT within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the ATC . One-on-one meeting(s) may be scheduled to fully understand the details of any formal ATCs. These meetings will be restricted to • those persons involved in the review of the A TC and limited to discussions ofthe PROPOSER' S ATC approach. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed changes, answer questions, and other relevant issues. Verbal responses are for information only and are not binding. Nothing stated at any ATC meeting(s) will modify the RFP or Contract documents. SCOOT reserves the right to disclose to all PROPOSERS any issues raised during the ATC meeting(s), either in the Final RFP or in an addendum. However, SCOOT will not disclose any information pertaining to an individual PROPOSER'S ATCs or other technical concepts to other Proposers. SCOOT will issue a written response to PROPOSER regarding its A TC.
c. No Response from SCOOT: If the PROPOSER does not receive correspondence from SCOOT within fourteen (14) calendar days of SCOOT's receipt of the A TC, the ATC is deemed rejected by SCOOT, unless written notification to extend this period is given by SCOOT. No A TC shall be included in the proposal unless approved by SCOOT in writing prior to the proposal submission deadline.
d. Conditional Response by SCOOT: If SCOOT issues a conditional answer; an additional 14 days are added to the Fourteen Day Review
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Interstate 85 and Interstate 385 Interchange Improvements • File No. 23.038111, Federal Aid Project No. £M23(009) Greenville County, South Carolina Page 8 of26 period. 7 days for PROPOSER to respond to the condition, and 7 days for • SCOOT to submit its final response to the ATC. 4. Determination of SCDOT a. SCOOT will make one of the following written determinations with respect to each properly submitted A TC:
I. The A TC is approved, in its entirety or in part; II. The A TC is not approved; 111. The A TC is not approved in its present form, but may be reconsidered for approval upon satisfaction, in SCOOT's sole discretion, of certain identified conditions that must be met or certain clarifications or modifications that must be made by PROPOSER. The PROPOSER shall not have the right to incorporate this A TC into the Proposal unless and unti I the A TC has been resubmitted within the time limits in the RFP, with the conditions, clarification and modifications satisfied, and SCOOT has unconditionally approved the revised A TC; or IV. The submittal does not qualify as an ATC but appears eligible to be included in the Proposal without an ATC (i.e., the concept appears to conform to the basic configuration and to be consistent with other contract requirements) . v. The A TC is deemed to take advantage of an error or omission in the RFP, or other documents incorporated into the contract by • reference, the A TC will not be considered, and the RFP will be revised to correct the error or omission VI. More than one formal A TC has been received on the same topic and the Department has elected to exercise its right to issue an addendum to the RFP to include that topic.
b. Once an A TC has been approved, only the entire A TC is eligible for inclusion into the Proposal. The inclusion of partial A TCs into a Proposal is not allowed, unless the individual A TC' s have received separate approval by SCOOT
c. Each PROPOSER, by submittal of its Proposal, acknowledges that the opportunity to submit A TCs was offered to all PROPOSERS, and waives any right to object to SCOOT's determinations regarding acceptability of ATCs.
5. Incorporation into Proposal a. A PROPOSER has the option to include any or all approved ATC' s in its Proposal. If SCOOT responded to an ATC by identifying conditions for approval, PROPOSER may not incorporate such A TC into the Proposal unless all conditions have been met. Copies of SCOOT's ATC approval letters for each incorporated ATC shall be included in the Proposal. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Interstate 85 and Interstate 385 Interchange Improvements • File No. 23 .038111 , Federal Aid Project No. IM23(009) Greenville County, South Carolina Page 9 of26 Proposals with or without ATC's will be evaluated against the same technical evaluation factors set forth in the EV ALUA TJON OF • PROPOSALS section, and the inclusion of an A TC, including an ATC that provides technical enhancements, may or may not receive a higher technical rating. SCOOT approval of an A TC shall not be considered a guarantee that the proposal incorporating the A TC will be selected. SCOOT's rejection of an ATC will not entitle the proposer to an extension of the Proposal submission deadline on the Milestone Schedule or claim for additional costs or delays, including development costs, loss of anticipated profits, or increased material or labor costs. b. The Proposal Price should reflect any incorporated approved ATCs. c. Except for incorporating approved A TCs, the Proposal may not otherwise contain exceptions to or deviations from the requirements of the RFP.
6. Value Engineering
An approved ATC that is not incorporated into the proposal will not be considered a pre approved value engineering change.
7. Abandonment of ATC by PROPOSER
If the approved ATC is abandoned by the PROPOSER, is unable to obtain required approvals, is otherwise proved to be infeasible, or fails to be constructed for any reason, the successful PROPOSER is obligated and required to complete the project utilizing the • original RFP design and scope requirements at the awarded cost, and shall be responsible for any redesign costs.
8. SCDOT's use of Concepts Contained in an ATC SCOOT expressly reserves the right to adopt and use any A TC, approved or disapproved, by the successful PROPOSER on this contract or other contracts administered by SCOOT. By submitting a Proposal, all unsuccessful PROPOSERS acknowledge that upon acceptance of the designated stipend, all approved or disapproved ATC' s may be included in this contract or other contracts administered by SCOOT and shall become the property of SCOOT without restriction on use. Prior to contact execution, limited negotiations may be conducted as necessary to incorporate the ideas and concepts from unsuccessful PROPOSERS provided a stipend is accepted by the unsuccessful offerer. 9. Proposer Obligations. The successful PROPOSER, m addition to performing all other requirements of the Contract Documents, shall: a. Obtain and pay the cost of obtaining all required approvals including approvals required to implement any approved ATC(s) incorporated into the Contract Documents;
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Interstate 85 and Interstate 385 Interchange Improvements • File No. 23.038111, Federal Aid Project No. IM23(009) Greenville County, South Carolina Page 10 of26 b. Obtain and pay the cost of obtaining any third party approvals required to implement any approved ATC(s) incorporated into the Contract • Documents; and c. Unless otherwise noted in the Contract, be responsible for all costs and/or delays of any nature associated with the implementation of any approved A TC incorporated into the Contract Documents.
d. Should SCOOT revise the RFP after a formal A TC has been approved, be solely responsible for reviewing the RFP and determining if the A TC deviates from the revised requirements. If required, the Proposer must submit a request for approval of all additional variances required within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the revised RFP. Stipends
By submitting a Proposal in response to the RFP, the PROPOSER acknowledges the following:
A. It is the intent of SCOOT to award a stipend of $200,000.00 to each responsible and responsive PROPOSER subject to the terms of the Stipend Agreement set forth in ARTICLE Xlll of the RFP.
B. PROPOSERS shall indicate on the Stipend Acknowledgement Form in Section XII to the RFP whether it elects to receive a stipend. The Stipend Acknowledgement Form shall be signed and returned with the unsealed Technical Proposal. The Stipend Acknowledgment Form will not count against the • specified page limit.
C. If PROPOSER elects to receive a stipend, the Stipend Agreement shall be signed by PROPOSER and submitted as part of the unsealed Technical proposal. The Stipend Agreement will not count against the specified page limit.
Proposal Submittal
Proposals must be received by the time and date given in the Milestone Schedule. Deliver TEN (1 0) printed and bound copies and one (1) electronic PDF (CD) copy of the Technical Proposal and one (I) sealed, printed copy of the Cost Proposal to:
JeffElliott, P.E. Contract Administration Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation 955 Park Street, Room 333 Post Office Box 191 Columbia, South Carolina 29202-0191
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Interstate 85 and Interstate 385 Interchange Improvements • File No. 23.038111 , Federal Aid Project No. IM23(009) Greenville County, South Carolina Page 11 of26 •
APPENDIX 2 Sample Alternative Technical Concept Submittals •
• ------
ATC Memo LANE lilt • To: SCOOT From Lane Construction Corporation Project: 38.036984, Orangeburg County
Date May 15, 2013
RE: Formal Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) ATC No. 1: Reduction of 8' Flush Median and Removal of 4' Raised Concrete Median Within the Interchange Limits
DESCRIPTION
The Lane Team proposes an ATC to maintaining the 8' flush median and 4' raised concrete median within the interchange area. Team proposes to reduce the flush median within the interchange limits of the 1-95/US 301 Partial Cloverleaf to 4 feet flush median and no raised concrete median.
USAGE
This ATC would only be used within the functional limits of the Partial Cloverleaf interchange as described in Addendum #1 .
DEVIATIONS
Page 6 of Exhibit 4a of Addendum #1, Section 7 Median Design allows for the design of an 8' flush median within the interchange area consisting of 4' raised concrete median and 2' paved offset from • edge of travel in each direction. This proposed ATC is inconsistent with this requirement, and the Lane Team requests a variance from this requirement.
Final RFP (Location and Page #) Deviation Exhibit 4a, Section 7, Addendum #1, Median Design ATC will not maintain the 8' total median "A minimum 8' flush median is allowable in the interchange width or the 4' raised concrete island. The area along US 301/SC 6 Connector. Flush medians less Lane Design-Build Team requests approval than 15' shall contain a 4' raised concrete median with a of this ATC to provide an alternative median. minimum 2' paved offset from the edge of traveled way. "
JUSTIFICATION
The Lane team has evaluated the draft concept plan provided by SCOOT in addition to the RFP requirements.
The reduction in median width from 8' to 4' is consistent with the allowable flush median width described in the Highway Design Manual, Section 21 .2.6 Medians "Where there is insufficient room for a TWL TL or where a TWL TL is considered unnecessary, the designer may want to consider providing a painted flush median that may range from 4 to 12 feet". Providing this median width would further simplify and reduce maintenance of bridge deck while providing positive separation between opposing traffic .
Allowing this ATC offers the Lane Team the opportunity to provide an equal design at a reduced cost.
• Lane Construction Corporation 38.036984 Design/Build Final A TC No. 1 Page 1 of3 SCHEDULE • The proposed ATC will reduce schedule by 21 days.
IMPACTS
• Vehicular Traffic: This ATC features no adverse impacts on vehicular traffic vs . the concept provided by the SCOOT.
• Safety: This ATC features no adverse impacts on safety vs. the concept provided by the SCDOT.
• Community Impacts: This ATC features no different impacts on the community vs. the concept provided by the SCDOT.
• Utility Impacts: This ATC features no adverse utility impacts vs . the concept provided by the SCDOT.
• Right of Way Impacts: This ATC features no adverse right of way impacts vs. the concept provided by the SCDOT.
• Environmental Impacts: This ATC features no adverse environmental impacts vs. the concept provided by the SCDOT.
HISTORY
• This ATC does not involve design or other technical concepts which are significantly different in any way from standard SCDOT design; therefore providing examples of past precedent does not appear to be required . This ATC only represents a refinement of the concept provided by SCDOT and is only being submitted to request the variances described in the "Deviations" section above.
RISKS
This ATC does not involve any added risks to the SCDOT or any other entities.
COSTS
• A TC Implementation Costs to the SCOOT: This ATC would represent a reduction in costs to the SCDOT by eliminating four feet of bridge deck width , by reducing the total Design/Build project construction costs, and by reducing future inspection, maintenance, and repair costs. The approximate anticipated initial construction cost savings expected if this ATC is approved would be $400,000. This reflects the reduction of construction of the subject bridge as well as associated reductions in grading, fill, pavement, and engineering costs within the functional interchange limits.
• A TC Implementation Costs to the Design/Build Team: This ATC would represent a cost savings to the Lane team; this savings would be passed on to the SCDOT via a reduced bid for this project.
QUALITY
• Lane Construction Corporation 38. 036984 Design/Build Final A TC No. 1 Page 2 of 3 This ATC maintains the number of travel lanes and reduces potential confusion about left turns from • US Route 301 onto 1-95.
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
This ATC does not involve any additional operations or maintenance to the SCOOT or any other entities.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Typical Section within functional interchange limits .
•
• Lane Construction Corporation 38.036984 Design/Build Final A TC No. 1 Page 3 of3 • • • ,..,...,til 7 TYPICAL SECTION OF IMPROVEMENT F~:r~-1...::..1=...1:; 1 1 SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COLUMBIA, S.C.
4'FU ISH (;' MEJ>IAN 'J:., 0 10' Sf/OIILVER i .J' PAVED SHW 2' i 1' s.oo·• 10.011' GRASS S/ILD l l l
~~~:~~~~~iil:~~!}'j~~-.1'f1j4i\11~i~~
r:J
"~ I IYJES , ! r~mES, I I (SHOWN 38 ! USE TillS 7TPICA L SECTION (SHOWN 38 ) U.S. RTE. 3011 SC 6 CONNECTOR !>TA.136+80 TO!>TA. 165+25 i&rrSnNG GROUND LINE i i i
(!)
<:Z)0 C£ME/I.'TSTAIIIUZEVAGGMG.411:11.4S£{6 " 11.\'IFOIW)
G). M£NG~ADEDF1t!CTIO/I'rof!W.V.fi/0Ul~J? I Cl).IIOT.\IIXASI'ILU.T INTU\I£/ .I/ATECO{I/tS£TYI'EII (1(11JUSISY) f%Ii iLTFENCEAT11/E TOE OF AUSLOPE.SPUSTD . DWG . &JJ ..ii(JJ.f)() j QjZ)Cl]]) HOT~nx ASI' HALTaA.~COfJitSF.rrn: A (liJI IAS/n'J SEESElJIME.,TAND EROSION CO.VTROL NOTES NO. I .-tNIJ NO. } ON FUNCTIONAL CLASS 5 U.S. RT£301 CZZ> GIU/J£/JAGGitEOATEMASE COU/tSEfi"UN/FOIW) . S f/EETNO . i G lfl fltALAifTEIUAL PAVEMENT DESIGN SOUTH CAAOUNA : se laAJJ£DAGGJf£GATEII .4SECOVIfSE (rt..'N IFV«M) NOTE: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ 171/S SLOP£ M4Y IJE Y.4RJW W .i J)££/'E.R II IS "'EC£5S.ikY ll£N lJnr: ROAD DESIGN COLUMBIA, S.C. ! @ MIUJNG£XJSTJNGASI'HALTI'tH'£lltf.A'T).{I" FOR DRAI.VAGE PURPOSES. USING A AflNIMIIM SLOPE OF 11:1 AND A THE :; @ MILUNG£XIsnNGASI'HALTrAY£.MENTJ.fi• MAXIMI!MSLOPEOF4 :1. WHEREA J>EEPER / 1/TCHTHANI'IfOYII>£1> LANE JiR..,. _..._ f BY A 4:1 IS NECESSARY, THE DITCH SHAU BE PUCED FAitnf ER F/?0.\f •t .,... ~ TYPICAL SECTION I : @ 0 £XlS17NG 1'A~.IIEA'T THE f CONT/Nl.IJNG THE 4: I SLOPE TO PROVID E FO /t mE NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION if::f.- ! •:J /IEP111. SE£PROFILEFOR711ESPECU.LD/TCHGRAD£S. CORPOR ATION =:.z- ! L.. - ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPT • SUBMITTAL Engineering SC-41 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OVER WANDO RIVER DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT Federal Aid Project No. BR88{079) File Nos. 8.158B & 10.032100 Charleston & Berkeley Counties, SC IALTERNATIVE TECHNICAl CONCEPT# 31 DESCRIPTION: The PCL Team proposes to utilize lightweight concrete in the bridge deck, sidewalk, and/or railing walls. The lightweight concrete mix will have a unit weigh not less than 120 pounds per cubic foot similar to the mix that PCl utilized for the superstructure on the Ben Sawyer Bridge Rehabilitation project. This concrete will have a 28-day compressive strength of 4 ksi. USAGE: The use of lightweight concrete will be limited to the bridge deck, sidewalks, or railing walls. DEVIATIONS: The following table summarizes the requirements of the RFP and Contract Documents that are inconsistent with this proposed ATC. • Document & Requirement Request for Deviation Section SCDOT Bridge Figure 15.2-1 specifies that Class 4000 Allow for the use of concrete with Design Manual, Concrete shall for Bridge Deck and lightweight aggregate to achieve a Section 15.2.1 Concrete Bridge Rails . unit weight of not less than 120 lb/CF SCDOT Standard and a 28-day compressive strength of Specifications for Requires crushed stone or gravel to be 4 ksi. Gradations ofthe lightweight Highway utilized as the coarse aggregate in Class aggregate will be in accordance with Construction, 4000 concrete. the acceptable gradations specified in Section 701.2.12.2 Section 701.2.10.4. JUSTIFICATION: This proposed ATC will allow for longer bridge spans, reduce foundation loadings, and reduce seismic loadings. SCHEDUlE: This proposed ATC will have no impact on the project schedule. IMPACTS: This proposed ATC will not adversely impact traffic, safety, community, or utilities. HISTORY: Lightweight Concrete has been used on several bridges in South Carolina. PCL utilized a lightweight concrete mix on the Ben Sawyer Bridge Rehabilitation project in order to minimize the • loadings on the existing substructure elements . File Nos. 8.158B & 10.032100 PCLATC#3 Page 2 of 2 • RISK: There are no additional risks associated with this ATC. COSTS: The implementation ofthis ATC will reduce construction cost by potentially eliminating a span and/or reducing the foundation and seismic loadings compared to a design utilizing normal weight concrete. QUALITY: The proposed ATC is essentially equal to the project in accordance with the RFP . The same concrete strength that is required in the RFP will be provided. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: The implementation of this ATC will not impact operations and maintenance . • • 'DE'J" SC Route 41 Bridg~ Replacement UNITED • SC- -JI Over the Wando River TEAM Final ATC #2A (Option A- Most Desirable) Private Access on the Southern Termini ofthe Project This A TC provides an alternative means of access to the east and western private properties on the Southern Termini of the Project. a. Description As shown in Figure 1 below, the EA and the Public Hearing Map identified a single access road to Detyens Shipyard parallel to SC 41 providing access to Detyens Shipyard and also to Atlantis Marine via an underpass under SC 41 . The EA I Public Hearing Map did not address any access to the Wando River, LLC Tracts with the exception of taking large area of right of away for the widening to the east side of the sc 41. • Figure 1-SCOOT EA I Public Hearing Access Concept Subsequent coordination with the owners of Atlantis Marine and Wando River LLC tracts by United's Design and Construction Team (without involving any of the R/W personnel), revealed the following issues and concerns: • November 11, 2013 Page 11 Kangaroo Express gas station I convenient store (owned by Oil Ship, LLC); 2) Atlantis Marine would lose two of its boat hangars. In addition, the proposed property access on the west side of the road, using a bridge underpass, required too many maneuvers for boat I trailer traffic , resulting in a much less than desirable access, and likely, requiring payment for business related compensation (loss of business); 3) The Wando River LLC current plan of development (shown in Figure 2 below) includes a new marina, marina office, hotel and a "high end" residential and commercial development. With the EA I Public Hearing concept, they would be faced with nearly 73 ,000 SF of valuable frontage land to be taken at a cost of $8 - $10 I SF ($350 to $435k I acre); • Figure 2- Wando Rover LLC Development Plan 4) SCOOT will be constructing and maintaining two separate access roads in the new right of way and will be responsible for the long term maintenance of pavement and drainage system serving private properties; and, 5) The new SC 41 Bridge is made nearly 300 feet longer than is needed in order to accommodate the underpass access to Atlantis Marine . • November 11, 2013 Page I 2 '~J'f' SC Route 41 Bridg~ Replacement UNITED SC..,., Over the Wando River TEAM In order to address these costly and less than desirable operating conditions, United Team is proposing the • following solution: a) As shown in Figure 3 below and Exhibits 1 and 2 (attached), we propose to replace the access road with two separate privately owned access driveways, one to Detyens Shipyard on the west of SC 41 and the other to Atlantis Marine to the east of SC 41. With proper and prudent property owner coordination, the access on the west side of SC 41 to Detyens Shipyard can be a designated "driveway" and an additional designated driveway from the proposed Wando River LLC entrance road can be provided to Atlantis Marine. The entrance of the Wando River LLC will be kept at the same location as their existing SC 41 access and the new access to Detyens Shipyard will be aligned on the opposite side of SC 41. Also, a new driveway would be constructed to Atlantis Marine. On the east side of SC 41 approximately 50' of ROW will be provided and a 5' high retaining wall constructed. The retaining wall will be constructed a distance of approximately 45 feet from the centerline of SC 41 to allow for a future S-lane widening with an 8' shoulder and guardrail without affecting the retaining wall. During the final design phase, United will perform a traffic signal warrant analysis for this intersection. If warranted, a traffic signal will be included in the Project with SCOOT's approval; b) One of the major advantage and significant cost saving feature is the opportunity for a replacement gas station and convenient store on the Wando River LLC Tract, only a few hundred yards away from the existing facility, lessening the cost of right away and business relocation by creating "similar" exposure to commercial traffic currently serving the gas station I convenient store on the Oil Ship, • LLC Tract. Figure 3- United Team's Proposed Solution • November 11, 2013 Page I 3 'DftJP SC Route 41 Bridg~ Replacement UNITED • SC- 'I Over the Wando River TEAM c) The SC 41 Bridge will be constructed within 10 feet of the existing SC 41 Bridge to minimize right of way taking on the east side of the SC 41. Additionally, the new SC 41 Bridge will be shortened by approximately 300 feet, as an underpass to Atlantis Marine from the west side of the SC 41 is no longer required. b. Usage This A TC would only apply to the access road and driveway on the Charleston County side of SC 41. c. Deviations Comparison Original in Proposed ATC RFP Public Hearing Display 2 privately owned 1 Public Access and maintained Road driveways Exhibit 4a Will only need to Section 2 meet Design Eliminate need criteria as for Access Road negotiated with Design Criteria the Property owners d. Justification • The proposed ATC provide the following advantages to SCOOT and property owners: I. The overall SC 41 bridge length will be reduced by approximately 300 LF; 2. It provides the opportunity for the convenient store I gas station to be relocated within a few hundred yards of its current location and operate in similar exposure to commercial traffic it currently serves, significantly reducing the cost to SCOOT for business relocation; 3. Improves access to the Atlantis Marine, reduces the right of way taking on both the east side of SC 41 (including one less boat hangar) by approximately 18,000 SF, and accommodates the future Wando River LLC development tract at a more cost effective manner to SCOOT; 4. Eliminates the need to acquire approximately 1 acre of land on the west side of the SC 41 for construction of the" jug handle" and access road to Detyens Shipyard and Carolina Boatyard; 5. As these accesses will become private driveways, there will be considerable cost saving to SCOOT for future maintenance cost for the pavement and drainage system on both the east and west side of the SC 41, as contemplated in the original Public Hearing Map; and, e. Schedule Acceptance of this A TC will reduce the overall schedule by 3-4 months by lessening the complexity of the right of way negotiation and constructing 300 feet of less bridge . • November 11, 2013 Page I 4 ------·------ There will be less property impacts to adjacent property owners on the south side of the Project in comparison to the EA I Public Hearing concept. There will be no additional utility or environmental impacts. We will accommodate safe, improved and efficient traffic flow for the boaters using the only landing facility (Atlantis Marine). g. History Providing private access to private property is routinely accomplished in previous projects throughout the State and lessening the impact to property taking and minimizing business damages are prudent project development practices by SCOOT. Additionally s similar scheme of access was originally shown when the bridge was going to be a low level moveable (bascule) span. h. Risks The SCOOT will take on no risk by approving this A TC. United will assume all risk in acquiring the appropriate permanent easements from Wando River Development for the driveway to Atlantis Marine and for any NEPA related revisions required. All elements of the Federal Uniform Relocation Act will be followed to acquire the permanent deeded access . i. Costs a) The direct bid cost savings to reduce the bridge length by approximately 300 LF and replace with • appropriate embankment material and to construct the access road will be approximately $3 Million in United's bid saving; b) The reduction of the right of way taking on both the east and west side of the SC 41, as well as, taking one less boat storage hangar for Atlantis Marine, will be approximately $1 Million in United's bid saving; and, c) Depending on volume of the business and profit history, the cost of the gas station I business relocation damage avoidance and an improved access to Atlantis Marine provided by this A TC would result in a cost saving in the $1 to $1.5 million range which will be direct cost savings to the Project and SCOOT. j. Quality There will be no change to the quality standards of either the design or construction of the Project by this ATC. k. Operations & Maintenance This A TC will reduce the future maintenance cost to the SCOOT by reducing the overall bridge length by approximately 300 LF and by eliminating an access road which the SCOOT will not be required to maintain . • November 11, 2013 Page I 5 • • • DETYENS SHIPY"" ARO INC. 26() EXISTWG PAVEMENTTO BE REMOVED NF ~ ATl.ANTlS MARINE INC. N' WANDO E. LLC g. ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ "'N PROPOSED 3 LANE SECTION DATE a:"' PRELIMINARY ~ ORIGINATOR ---- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ig CHECKED ---- 2 ~~ RE'J1SEO SC 41 i: ~ vmFIEo SCAl[ , . _ , PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET • • • OElYENS SHPYARO""' INC. <60 EXISTING PAVEMENT TO 6E RE~DVED ~ AllANTlS ""MAAINE INC. WANDO"' E. LLC c ~ u ~ ~ ,;; v u ~ FUTURE 5 LANE SECTION DATE PRELIMINARY ORIGINATOR --- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKED ---- REVISED _ ___ sc 41 VERIFIED PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET BELLAMY • 1-95/ US 301 Design-Build Project May 30,2013 Submittal Formal A TC #4 (Reference Jlrcliminary ATC Concept #7) A. Description: This ATC proposes to construct a bottomless culvert within the project in order to reduce or eliminate jurisdictional stream impacts. This culvert would be designed to span the existing jurisdictional stream, allowing construction to be completed with no impact to the existing stream. B. Usage: The proposed bottomless culvert would be used in lieu of concrete pipe or a four sided concrete box culvert. Usage and functions of the culvert remain unchanged. C. Deviations: The A TC will deviate from the plans provided in the RFP which indicate a traditional culvert or pipe be placed in the stream. D. Justification: The bottomless culvert would reduce or eliminate jurisdictional stream impacts and the associated mitigation, for which there are not any existing approved mitigation banks . E. Schedule: This ATC may reduce the project schedule by eliminating the time required for • identifying and securing approval of suitable stream mitigation. This time savings could range from 180 to 360 days. F. Impacts: The proposed bottomless culvert ·will reduce stream impacts and provide improved day lighting conditions within the culvert. There would be no changes in impacts to vehicular traffic, safety, community, utilities, or right of way. G. History: Bottomless culve1ts have been used on other highway projects to reduce stream impacts. H. Risks: No added risks are anticipated for anyone. I. Costs: This ATC will have little or no impact on project costs as the cost of the bottomless culvert may offset the savings in cost of stream mitigation. This A TC should not affect implementation costs for anyone during construction, maintenance, or operations . • Hartsfield Centre Building, I 00 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Stc 520, Atlanta, GA 30354 Phone: 404-684-9064 · Fax: 404-761·4764 • Formal ATC #4- continued J. Quality: The design and construction of the culvert will meet the requirements in the RFP for quality in design and construction. K. Operations and Maintenance: This A TC does not change any operation or maintenance requirements. Future maintenance cost may be reduced as the opening for the bottomless culvert would be greater than for other traditional culverts and thereby have less risk of clogging from silt or debris . • • Ha11sfield Centre Building, I 00 Hm1sfield Centre Parkway, Ste 520, Atlanta, GA 30354 Phone: 404-684-9064 · Fax: 404-761-4764 • APPENDIX 3 SCOOT Design Build Best Practices • • ------··-- -- SCOOT DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT • BEST PRACTICES MEMORANDUM September 12, 2012 It is the intent of SCDOT to develop and procure design-build contracts in a manner that is easily understood by and acceptable to the contracting and consultant industry, and in the best interest of the State. To that end, the following design-build best practices have been developed by SCDOT working closely with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Association of General Contractors (AGC), and the American Council of Engineering Consultants (ACEC) via the joint AGC/ACEC/SCDOT Design-build Subcommittee. To the extent possible, considering all project-related constraints and any unforeseen events, SCDOT will attempt to utilize the practices listed below in delivering design-build projects. Best Practices I. As a standard practice, design build projects will be procured by the Director of Construction's Office (submittals to the SCDOT Contracts Administrator). II. As a standard practice, the Department will strive for consistency in the Design Build Process: • A. A design build evaluation committee will be assigned by the Deputy Secretary for Engineering for each design build project: i. The ultimate size and makeup of the design build committee will depend on project requirements, but as a general rule each committee will be chaired by a staff member from the Innovative Projects Section (housed in Regional Production Group 1). ii. Each committee will include at least one staff member from each of the following: • Director of Construction's Office • Director of Preconstruction's Office • District Office • SCDOT Legal Division (non-voting member) • FHWA (non-voting member) iii. The SCDOT Legal representative as well as the FHWA representative, as non voting members, will serve as advisors to monitor the document development and evaluation processes. iv. Additional voting and/or non-voting committee members may be added as appropriate for each specific project. • Page 1 of7 v. The committee chairman will instruct members of the design build committee participating in the evaluation of the requirements for ethical conduct and • confidentiality, and ask each evaluator to sign a statement that he/she has read and understands those standards of conduct. If an evaluator has an actual or apparent conflict of interest related to a proposal under evaluation, that evaluator will be removed and replaced with another. If a suitable replacement is not available, the remaining evaluators will perform the evaluation. B. The Innovative Projects Section will maintain all current documents pertaining to design-build projects in order to ensure the tracking and implementation of "lessons learned" from previous design build projects. Ill. As a standard practice, the Department will maintain a Design Build website link that will contain a listing of potential design build projects and schedules. The website link will also include the following information: A. Request for Qualifications (RFQ} B. All updates or modifications to the RFQ C. Shortlist Letter including the names of all shortlisted teams • D. Bid Opening Date and Location E. Project information (ie. environmental documents, public displays, etc.) available at the time of the RFQ release IV. As a standard practice, the Department will utilize a two-step process (RFQ , then RFP) for design build procurements A. Request for Qualifications: i. Request for Qualifications (RFQs) will be advertised on-line at http://www.scdot.org/doing/designbuild.shtml and in South Carolina Business Opportunities (SCBO), as well as the standard daily newspapers utilized for construction contract advertisements. In addition, an alert box will be added to BID-X notifying interested parties ofthe RFQ release. ii. When using a 2-step process, SCOOT will short-list the number of DB teams to advance to the RFP stage (no more than 5 and no less than 3 whenever possible) . • Page2of7 -----~------ • B. Request for Proposals: i. Request for Proposals (RFPs) will only be released to short-listed DB teams. ii. The Department will issue an RFP for Industry Review. Then after comments/questions are received from the DB teams, a Final RFP will be issued. iii. All comments received during the Industry Review phase will be considered by SCOOT. As a result, any changes/revisions deemed appropriate by SCOOT will be incorporated into the final RFP and highlighted so they will be easily identified. DB Teams providing comments during this phase will not receive a separate response from SCOOT. V. As a standard practice, the Department will allow confidential meeting(s) with individual shortlisted DB teams, if requested by the DB team in accordance with the Final RFP : A. All teams requesting a confidential meeting shall provide written comments and questions prior to the meeting in accordance with the RFP. B. Responses to confidential questions will be provided by one of the following: i. Confidential response to the specific DB team. ii. Addendum to the RFP released to all proposing DB teams . iii. No response (refer to RFP). • C. Confidential meetings intended to facilitate the Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) process. VI. As a standard practice, RFQ and RFP submittals will be submitted only to the SCOOT Contracts Administrator in the Director of Construction's Office: A. For RFP responses, The Contracts Administrator will remove the price envelopes and secure them, prior to distributing the proposals to the evaluation committee. B. The review committee will never be in possession of the price envelopes and will only see them when they are opened by the Contracts Administrator at the bid opening. VII. As a standard practice, the design build evaluation committee for each project will review and score qualification submittals and proposal submittals based on questions and project priorities as defined in the RFQ and RFP documents. Qualification scores will then be used to assist in defining the appropriate shortlist and Proposal scores will be used to assign quality points as defined in the RFP . • Page 3 of7 VIII. As a standard practice, the Department will conduct a bid opening for design-build price • proposals. The Bid opening will be open to interested parties and will follow bid opening procedures and analysis as detailed in the RFP and the SCOOT Bid Review Policies and Procedures document. In addition, SCOOT will advertise the bid opening date on the Design Build Website. IX. As a standard practice for federally funded projects, the Department will seek FHWA concurrence at various stages of procurement: A. RFQ document and release B. Shortlisted teams - After the shortlisted teams are selected, a memorandum will be sent to FHWA for written concurrence of the shortlisted teams. C. RFP document and release D. Award -Once proposals have been scored, bids have been opened, and SCOOT decides to proceed with award, a letter will be sent to FHWA requesting concurrence in awarding the contract. FHWA will provide written concurrence in the award prior to an award notification and contract execution. If SCOOT determines it is appropriate to reject all proposals or issue a best and final offer (BAFO), SCOOT will seek FHWA • concurrence prior to proceeding. X. As a standard practice, the Department will conduct debriefings, when requested by the design build team, as follows: A. RFQ debriefings for non-shortlisted teams will occur after the shortlisted teams are named. B. Debriefings for shortlisted teams will occur only after a design-build contract has been executed. XI. As a standard practice, the Department will pay stipends only when approved specifically for the project. When approved for a project, stipend amounts will be set in accordance with 23 CFR 636.113 and will only be paid to eligible unsuccessful shortlisted proposers. No stipends will be paid for submitting RFQ responses. XII. As a standard practice, the Department will attempt to include, at a minimum, the following in the RFP information package: • Page 4 of 7 • A. Hierarchy of documents B. Surveys i. SCOOT will provide primary survey control and take the risk for primary survey control errors. C. Pipe Inspection Data D. Geotechnical data i. Within the anticipated limits of a bridge, borings will be provided at intervals of approximately 100 feet. A minimum of two borings will be provided at each bridge site. E. Environmental: i. All available environmental documents ii. Typically, permit responsibility will be the DB teams with submittals through SCOOT. Or, for permits handled by SCOOT, dates will be provided when the DB team may assume the permit will be received. F. Design Criteria: i. Design speed, functional class, and traffic volumes ii. Pavement design • G. Design Plans will be provided as information only, based on environmental document type: i. ForCE's- design sufficient to obtain the CE ii. EA/FONSI- 30% plans iii. EIS/ROD- 60% plans iv. All plans for information only. H. Hydraulic Information I. Utility Information XIII. As a standard practice, SCOOT will attempt to streamline DB submittal reviews: A. SCOOT will minimize duplicate comments or any comments outside of the scope of the RFP /Contract. B. SCOOT will require the DB team to submit a proposed design review submittal schedule identifying type and dates of all proposed submittals for SCOOT approval. • Page 5 of7 • C. Once the DB team review submittal schedule is approved, it will be updated on a monthly basis. D. SCOOT will require the DB team to use an electronic based submittal process, with hardcopies as requested. E. In order to assist with shortened reviews on subsequent submittals, SCOOT will require the DB Team to include highlighting or colored bubbles around any changes or revisions from previous submittals. XIV. As a standard practice, SCOOT and the Design Build Team will utilize Issue Papers (IP's) to track modifications to the RFP and I or scope of the project. A. An Issue Paper will be used to track the modifications to the RFP and I or scope contract. These issues may include: i. Changes in project scope (lane widths, design speed, clear zone, pavement designs, etc.) ii. Changes in referenced RFP documents (design manuals, publications, supplemental specification, etc.) iii. Changes in contract requirements (liquidated damages, completion dates, • seasonal restrictions, A+B calculations, etc.) B. Each IP will be individually numbered and tracked. A spreadsheet will be generated to track the IP and any costs associated with each . C. Concurrence for Issue Papers will be required from both parties: i. SCOOT concurrence- drafts of the IP are sent electronically to obtain concurrence from the DCE, FHWA, DOC, SCOOT design engineer (depending on issue), and the RPG (for funding if needed). ii. Design-Build Team -the project manager must sign off on the Issue Paper or reply with his concurrence to make the IP a legal contract document D. Upon concurrence, changes to contract requirements may be documented immediately via a change order in SiteManager. E. Design-Build projects are primarily comprised of LS bid items. Once the individual LS item of work is fully complete and no further issues are expected, a change order may be processed incorporating all costs and credits associated with the various Issue Papers . • Page 6 of7 F. If required at the completion of the project, a Change Order will be generated in Site Manager in order to document all issue papers as the permanent record for the • project modifications. XV. As a standard practice, SCDOT and the Design Build Team will utilize Requests for Information (RFI 's) to track requests for clarification or interpretation of existing contract requirements: A. Each RFI will be numbered and tracked individually. A spreadsheet will be generated to track the RFI numbers, responses and when they were closed . B. The RFI will remain open until the issue has been addressed and answered. C. An RFI response may result in an Issue Paper being submitted if the resolution results in a change or modification to the RFP as noted above. However, these are two separate documents and should not be confused. XVI. As a standard practice, the use of Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) will be considered for all design-build projects. At the discretion ofthe Department, ATCs will be utilized on a case by • case basis where determined to be appropriate and advantageous . • Page 7 of7 [4] Motor Fuel User Fee https://dor.sc.gov/tax/motor-fuel Motor Fuel User Fee Effective July 1, 2017, the Motor Fuel User Fee increases by $0.02 per gallon every fiscal year until 2022, as outlined in the chart below. This increase is established in SC Code Section 12-28- 310(D), provided at the bottom of this page. All sales of fuel subject to the Motor Fuel User Fee are subject to these rate increases. The point of taxation for motor fuel is when the product is removed from the IRS terminal. On July 1, 2018 the $0.20 per gallon Motor Fuel User Fee goes into effect. The $0.18 per gallon Motor Fuel User Fee will apply to amended returns and refunds that reflect activity prior to July 1, 2018. Effective Dates of Motor Fuel User Fee Increases User Fee Per Gallon Prior to July 1, 2017 $0.16 July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 $0.18 July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 $0.20 July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 $0.22 July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 $0.24 July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 $0.26 July 1, 2022 $0.28 Licensed suppliers are responsible for reporting and remitting the User Fees and other applicable fees on product removed from the IRS terminal. The User Fee for gasoline and low sulfur diesel must be charged by the supplier and fuel vendor regardless of how the product will be used. However, there are refund provisions that allow end users to receive a refund based on how the product is used. There are also refund provisions for companies selling motor fuel to exempt users. Refund applicants that are not required to license under the motor fuel provision must complete a refund registration form to set up a refund account. https://dor.sc.gov/tax/motor-fuel Fuel: • Gasoline: all gasoline, gasohol, or blended fuels containing gasoline. • Special Fuel: all diesel fuel, substitute fuels, alternative fuels, or blended fuels containing diesel fuel. Environmental Impact Fee Motor Fuel Statute – Code §12-28-2355(B): For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 12 Chapter 28 Code of Laws South Carolina, there must be paid to the Department an environmental impact fee charge of $0.0050 per gallon of petroleum product except LP gas. This fee liability arises at the same time and is payable and collected by the same person as if the petroleum product was subject to the motor user fee imposed under Title 12 Chapter 28 Code of Laws South Carolina. Inspection Fee Motor Fuel Statute – Code §12-28-2355(A): For the purpose of providing funds for inspecting, testing, and analyzing petroleum products for general state purposes, there must be paid to the Department an inspection fee charge of $0.0025 per gallon of petroleum product except LP gas. This fee liability arises at the same time and is payable, and collected by the same person as if the petroleum product was subject to the motor user fee imposed under Title 12 Chapter 28 Code of Laws South Carolina. Motor Fuel Statute - Code §12-28-310 SECTION 12-28-310. User fees on gasoline and diesel fuel. A. Subject to the exemptions provided in this chapter, a user fee of sixteen cents a gallon is imposed on: 1. all gasoline, gasohol, or blended fuels containing gasoline that are used or consumed for any purpose in this State; and 2. all diesel fuel, substitute fuels, or alternative fuels, or blended fuels containing diesel fuel that are used or consumed in this State in producing or generating power for propelling motor vehicles. B. The user fee levied on motor fuel subject to the user fee pursuant to this chapter is a levy and assessment on the consumer, and the levy and assessment on other persons as specified in this chapter are as agents of the State for the collection of the user fee. This section does not affect the method of collecting the user fee as provided in this chapter. The user fee imposed by this section must be collected and paid at those times, in the manner, and by the persons specified in this chapter. https://dor.sc.gov/tax/motor-fuel C. The license user fee imposed by this section is instead of all sales, use, or other excise tax that may be imposed otherwise by any municipality, county, or other local political subdivision of the State. HISTORY: 1995 Act No. 136, Section 2; 1996 Act No. 461, Section 4A; 2005 Act No. 161, Section 25.A, eff June 9, 2005; 2006 Act No. 386, Section 18.C, eff July 1, 2006. SECTION 2. Section 12-28-310 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding a subsection at the end to read: "(D) On July 1, 2017, and each July first thereafter until after July 1, 2022, the department shall permanently increase the amount of the user fee imposed pursuant to subsection (A) by two cents, for a total of twelve cents. All of the funds raised by the increase in the motor fuel user fee imposed by this subsection must be credited to the Infrastructure Maintenance Trust Fund." [5] SCDOT Strategic Plan Overview‐Goal 3 Our task over the next 10 years and beyond is to repair and rebuild our transportation network to ensure that our citizens and businesses can travel on a safe and reliable system. This is a core function of government and SCDOT is entrusted with the responsibility to effectively and efficiently utilize tax payer funds to turn the status of the state-owned transportation network around. We will accomplish this mission by establishing an overarching Strategic Plan to guide our initiatives, a Transportation Asset Management Plan to articulate our targets and embrace performance management principles that will enable us to determine how we are doing in achieving our goals. We will also utilize risk management strategies to help us identify and mitigate potential obstacles to achieving success. Strategic Plan TAMP Performance Management Provides direction through Vision, Mission, Goals, Strategies and Objectives. Transportation Asset Management Plan: Implements priorities by establishing Tracks Progress towards Goals through outcome-based measures and provides investment levels and desired targets. information to guide decisions regarding changing or adjusting goals, targets or investment levels. VALUES: The SCDOT team recognizes the importance of all SCDOT divisions, Objective: D ecrease the number of structurally deficient bridges across the Strategy: R einforce a culture of excellent customer service at SCDOT. units, and offices functioning as one team – One SCDOT. Our team not only state. Objective: Launch updated Customer Service Training. serves our citizens and businesses to accomplish the mission and achieve the Objective: I mprove the level of service of our day-to-day maintenance of the Objective: Increase responsiveness. vision, it also exemplifies the qualities and holds the values that make us one of State System for key safety-related items. the top DOT’s in the nation. Objective: D ecrease the number of mass transit vehicles in poor condition. Strategy: Plan for an evolving workforce. Objective: P repare for an anticipated loss of workforce experience and Strategy: I ncrease competition by growing the number of South expertise due to TERI program completion and other retirements. Our core Values are: Carolina contractors capable of bidding on road & bridge Objective: T rain and develop a strong bench of future leaders through Team work. participation in leadership programs. Excellence Objective: E nhance the network of small businesses that are ready, willing Objective: C ontinue and enhance efforts to promote a more diverse and Accountability and able to assist the Agency in meeting its infrastructure goals. inclusive workforce. Make a Difference Goal 3: Improve SCDOT program delivery to increase the efficiency and reliability Goal 5: Earn public trust through transparency, improved communications and of our road and bridge network. audit compliance. Goal 1: Improve safety programs and outcomes in our high-risk areas. Strategy: T arget known congested areas. Strategy: U tilize multiple ways to facilitate interactive communication Strategy: Continue implementation of Highway Safety Plan. Objective: I mprove the reliability of the movement of people and goods about SCDOT. Objective: Reduce fatalities by 6% by end of calendar year 2020. across the major portions of our road network. Objective: Simplify the website to create a more user-friendly interface. Objective: L aunch Speaker’s Bureau to provide forums for agency personnel Strategy: I ncrease SCDOT’s reliability of delivering projects on-time Strategy: D evelop and implement a data-driven, rural road safety to provide updates directly to the public and our industry and on-budget. program. partners. Objective: P rojects proceed on schedule and within budget in accordance Objective: Reduce fatalities on roads in our rural areas. with SCDOT’s 10-year Program Delivery Plan. Strategy: R e-tool our existing reports to make them easier to Goal 2: Maintain and preserve our existing transportation infrastructure. Objective: E xpedite the environmental permitting process for road and understand. bridge projects. Objective: Simplify public reporting on the use of taxpayer dollars. Strategy: I mprove SCDOT’s reliability on resolving reported Objective: D evelop an effective method for communicating how projects are maintenance issues. Goal 4: Provide a safe and productive work environment for SCDOT employees. prioritized. Objective: I ncrease responsiveness regarding customer service requests for Strategy: Promote workforce safety throughout the state. routine maintenance items. Strategy: Provide continuous assurance of audit compliance. Objective: I ncrease the public’s awareness of highway worker safety in our Objective: I nstitute a process for providing verification that corrective actions Strategy: U tilize the Transportation Asset Management Plan to drive work zones. implemented as a result of an audit are continuous. outcomes on system and asset condition. Objective: E stablish programs to provide unit and individual safety awards Objective: I ncrease the % Good Pavements on the road network across the and incentives. * The SCDOT Strategic Plan Overview is a summary of a detailed plan. For more information state. that includes specific measures and targets please contact the Office of Strategic Planning and Reporting at 803-737-1381/2649 or at www.scdot.org. MISSION: SCDOT connects communities and drives our economy through the systematic planning, construction, maintenance and operation of the state highway system and the statewide intermodal transportation and freight system. VISION: It is SCDOT’s vision to rebuild our transportation system over the next decade in order to provide adequate, safe and efficient transportation services for the movement of people and goods in the Palmetto state. 855-go-SCDOT (855-467-2368) www.scdot.org