handout Dan Dorgan 2of2 6pp.pdf

8/20/2019 handout Dan Dorgan 2of2 6pp.pdf

1/15

1/16/20

ar Building the I35W St. Anthony Falls Bridge

Dan DorganState Bridge Engineer

Minnesota Department of Transportation

February 15, 2010

Topics• Mn/DOT Decision to Utilize Design Build

• Procurement Process and RFP Development

• Challenges We Faced

• Scoring Process• Mn/DOT’s Approach to Design Build Projects

• Design and Construction of the Bridge

2

3

OwnerMinnesota Department of TransportationMinnesota Department of Transportation

ontractor

Flatiron Constructors Inc.Flatiron Constructors Inc.

I35W – A Team Success

FIGG Bridge Engineers • TKDA

Owner’s Oversight ConsultantParson’s Transportation Group

FIGG Bridge Engineers • TKDA

Owner’s Oversight ConsultantParson’s Transportation Group

esigners

, .Manson Construction Co. – Johnson Bros.

, .Manson Construction Co. – Johnson Bros.

Partner

FHWAFHWA

Previous I-35W Bridge•The Major North-South route through Minneapolis

August 1, 2007

Planning for Replacement Begins EarlyMorning Hours of August 2

• Previous Bridge Emergency Replacement Plans

Inadequate• Replacement Team Begins to Form

• Discussion Begins on Fastest Delivery Method


2/15

1/16/20

New Bridge is Needed Fast

141,000 Cars a Day Used theBridge

One of the Busiest Bridges inMinnesota

U of M

Downtown Minneapolis

$400K a day estimated in roadusers costs

Mn/DOT needs to DemonstrateAbilities and Begin RebuildingPublic Confidence

How Do We Do It?

• August 2nd – Design-Build Best-Value

Procurement Method Selected• Core Team Identified

▫ Managers on Team

▫ Bridge Office personnel Three bridge designers

Two construction engineers with bridgeexperience

Empowered to be decision makers

Mn/DOT Design Build Process

Why Best Value?• Considers Quality and Cost• 7th Design Build Best Value Project

35W Utilized Previous Lessons Learned• Mn/DOT Design Build Specifications Well

Developed• Past Design Build Projects Successful• Geometric Improvements Desired• Public Input / Communication and

Visual Quality Important• Utilize Expertise of DB Teams• Allows Construction to Begin Quickly

Challenges of I-35W Site

• Utility Coordination

• R/W Acquisition (13 Parcels)

• Environmental Permitting (10)

• Contamnate Mater a s

• Demolition Contract

• 24/7 Work Necessary

• Hydraulic Scour

• Context Sensitive Design Site

• Winter was Coming

National Response“We are from Washington and are Here to Help….They Did!”

• August 2nd – Secretary Peters andFHWA Administrator Capka on Site

• August 4th – President Bush Visitsand Pledges to Expedite Assistance

• Con ress authorizes 250 millionin Emergency Relief money toreplace bridge and restorehighway facilities to pre-disasterconditions

• Total Federal Emergency Relief$373.5M

• FHWA Division Bridge EngineerAssigned Full-Time to ProjectTeam


3/15

1/16/20

Procurement Process

• Established Mn/DOT Design Build Team on August2nd

• Issued Statement of Qualification on Saturday,August 4th• Short listed 5 teams August 8th•

proposing team▫ M, W, F : Phone Conferences, T, TH: Face to Face▫ Purpose: develop relationships with contractor, increase

their comfort level, explain project expectations• Held public meetings, DBE and Utility

coordination meetings• Addressed Media and Public Questions• Developed Request for Proposals in Three Weeks• Responded to Clarifications and Issued Addenda

RFP Development & Challenges“Slow Down, You are Moving Too Fast”

• A Landmark Bridge Should be Considered

• You Don’t Know Wh the Previous Brid eCollapsed

• No Ugly Freeway-Style Bridge

• Design Bridge for a Future Light Rail Line

• Minnesota Politics

RFP Development & Challenges

• Defined Allowable BridgeTypes▫ Concrete Box or Concrete Beams▫ Steel Box or I-girder▫ ▫ No Hinges

• Project Visual Quality▫ Advisory Group Goals and Oversight

• Alternate Technical Concepts

Allowed

RFP Development & Challenges

• No piers in river due to scour and variablerock elevations

▫ Drilled Shafts Would be Needed ▫

• Other Agencies Demanded the DesignAccommodate Future LRT addition

▫ Added a week before RFP could be released▫ Developed Criteria for LRFD Methodology

• One Team Withdraws

Established an Aggressive Procurement Timeline

• August 1, 2007 – Collapse Occurs

• August 4 – Issue Request for Qualifications

• August 8 – Short Listed Teams

• August 23 – Request For Proposals Released

• eptem er - ec nica roposas eceive

• September 18▫ Evaluation and Scoring Completed▫ Financial Proposals Received

• September 19 – Project Letting

• September 20 – City of Minneapolis GrantsMunicipal Consent

• Project Award –October 8, 2007• Construction Begins – November 15, 2007

New St. Anthony Falls Bridge

PROJECT GOALS

• Safety

• Quality

• Aesthetics

• Public Relations

• Enhancements

• Maintain Time and Budget


4/15

1/16/20

RFP Evaluation/Scoring Criteria

• Quality (50 percent)▫

Experience and authority of key individuals▫ Extent of quality control/quality assurance▫ Safety▫ Measures to evaluate performance in construction

• Aest etcs/V sua Qua ty 20 percent▫ Visual enhancements to the structure▫ Involvement of the public after letting

• Enhancements (15 percent)▫ Roadway and Long-Term I-35W Plans▫ Structural Enhancements

• Public Outreach/Involvement (15 percent)▫ Impacts to the public▫ Approach to communication

Best Value Selection Process

• Score Technical Proposal with Proposal Evaluations Receivedfrom Twenty-Seven Individuals From Six Agencies▫ Associated General Contractors▫ FHWA▫ ▫ Minnesota Department of Administration▫ Minnesota Department of Transportation▫ City of Minneapolis

• Methodology:▫ Criteria was provided to teams when RFP was issued▫ Time and Cost components unknown during evaluation of proposal▫ Best Value Selection

Best Value Selection Process

• Based on Cost plus Time Divided by Technical Score▫ $200,000 per day for each day bid

• Formula▫ Cost + Time in da s * $200 000 /Technical Score ,

• December 24, 2008 Deadline▫ Early Completion Bonus for up to 100 Days early

Incentive Included to Manage Schedule

• Locked Incentive Date (LID) Payment

▫ Payment of LID Payment is intended to ensure Mn/DOT and the publicbenefits of early completion

▫ Payments based on Substantial Completion I $7 million for meeting LID completion date – 12/24/08

$2 million for every 10 days earlier, capped at $20 million

• Provisions to Contain Costs▫ LID Payment of $7 Million Must be a ccepted by Contractor 30 days

after notification of reaching Substantial Completion

▫ Acceptance of LID means acceptance of: Waiver of any delays, Owner or Contractor caused Full and final settlement for any claims or time extension.

Waiver of all claims covers all unknown costs and use ofdispute resolution process

Project Selection Results

ProposerTechnicalProposal

Score

Price Proposal'A'

Time(Days)

Time(Days x $200K)

'B'

Adjusted Score(A+B) / Technical Score

.. , ,, , , , , , , , ., , .

C.S.C.S. McCrossanMcCrossan 65.9165.91 $ 176,938,000$ 176,938,000 367367 $ 73,400,000$ 73,400,000 3,798,179.343,798,179.34

Walsh / AmericanWalsh / AmericanBridgeBridge

67.8867.88 $ 219, 000, 000$ 219,000,000 437437 $ 87,400,000$ 87,400,000 4,513,847.974,513,847.97

Flatiron / MansonF la ti ro n / Man so n 9 1. 4791.47 $ 233,763,000$ 233,763,000 437437 $ 87,400,000$ 87,400,000 3,511,129.333,511,129.33

Low Score = Best Value!Low Score = Best Value!

Design Build on Accelerated Schedule

August 23 Request

For Proposals

October 8 Project award toFlatiron / Manson and FIGG

August 1 - Collapse occurs

August 4 - Issue Request for Qualifications

August 8 - Short listed teams

re ease

September 19 - Project letting

DECEMBER 2008 AUGUST 2007

SEPTEMBEROCTOBER 2007

December 24Anticipated

open to traffic(15 Month

ConstructionSchedule)

September 14Technical proposals

received andevaluation begins

September 18 - Financial proposals received


5/15

1/16/20

Bridge Description•Variable depth superstructure 25’ to 11’

•Concrete piers supported by footings and drilled shafts socketed into

rock•Cast-in-Place approach spans and Precast Segmental River span (120segments)

Bridge Description•Two parallel bridges, each with two box girders

•Striped for 5 lanes each direction (10 total) with 13’ and 14’shoulders

•Future configuration of 4 lanes each direction plus light railline or bus transit lane (lane drop for ramps)

90’4”

11’

35W Public Involvement

• Stakeholder Involvement

• Design Charette

• Communication

FIGG Bridge Design CharetteTM

•October 24, 2007•7:30 AM – 5:00 PM

•88 People•Residents, Businesses,Cultural/Arts,University of Minnesota,

Government Officials

•Voted on Bridge Features

Photos Courtesy of Figg Bridge

A Scu lp tural Br idg e: Arches Water Reflect ions. .

I II I

CURVED PIER OPTION BCURVED PIER OPTION B

I II I


Option 1Native stone in gabion wall



6/15

1/16/20

Native StonePhotos Courtesy of Figg Bridge

Option 2Rectangular MSE wall panels

Inscriptions of famous quotes about theMississippi River and other river icons

embossed in rectangular panels


Native Kasota Stone VetterstonePhotos Courtesy of Figg Bridge

Option 1Fully Open Rail


View from north shore near St. Anthony Falls

White - Modern or

Sandstone - Color from local rockBridge ColorPhotos Courtesy of Figg Bridge

Mn/DOT’s Project Approach

• Co-housed with Contractor’s DesignBuild Team

▫ Important to Establish aPartnership Relation

• Utilize past DB expertise▫ Well Developed Quality

Management Template • a e pro e c w exper ence ,decisive staff empowered to act

▫ Supplement with consultants asneeded

•Independent Review by OversightTeam

▫ Mn/DOT and Parsons TransportationGroup

•OTS reviews – early and often▫ Reviewed all submittals within 7

days▫ Averaged 2 days


7/15

1/16/20

Mn/DOT’s Project Approach(Continued)

• Environmental Management▫ Project Memorandum (Categorical Exclusion)

▫ Strong Relationships with permitting agencies

▫ Project was a Priority of Permitting Agencies

▫ Use Good Will & Sense of Mission of PermittingAgencies

Do Not Exploit

▫ Make & Keep Reasonable Commitments

Quality Management

• Mn/DOT used previously developed Quality ManagementTemplate▫ Establishes minimum expectations▫ Expect teams to expand and enhance▫

construction• Quality Procedures

▫ Identifies task▫ Identifies pertinent specifications▫ Identifies responsibilities for all involved▫ Identifies documentation needed

• Involvement of Engineer of Record (Figg Bridge Engineers)▫ Construction Inspections▫ Field Revisions

Safety Management

• Partnership▫ Mn/DOT

▫ Flatiron-Manson

▫ Mn/OSHA on Site and part of team

• Training of all workers assigned to project▫ Required escorts for visitors

• Large Safety Team

• Audits performed weekly

• No Serious Injuries on Project

Other Actions Led to Project Success

•Labor Agreement with the Building trades▫ Efficient Labor force – over 600 at peak

▫ Unaffected by cold weather

▫ Construction continued 24/7

•Communication by Flatiron and Figg Engineers▫ Saturday Sidewalk Superintendent Talks

▫ Educational Outreach to City Schools

FHWA’s Participation

•Full-time Bridge Engineer On Site

•Gathered expertise from national experts on anyissue

•Brought in experts to share ideas from past DBprojects

- Silica Fume

- Health Monitoring

- Quality Programs

- Drilled Shafts

Bridge Removal

• Removal was a Separate Force AccountContract

• Coordination with NTSB required

• DB Contractor Aware of Removal TimeConstraints

Aug. 20Navy Divers recover 13th victim, site turned over to Mn/DOT

Sept. 6Navigation channel opened to commercial traffic

Sept. 27Final steel removed from river


8/15

1/16/20

Site was Cleared by October 11, 2007

44

Goal: Goal:or veryw ere oss e

at the Same Time

at the Same Time

Main Pier Foundations 7' and 8' diameter drilled shafts100' long with socket into bedrock

Drilled Shaft Issues

• First Shaft Struck on Artesian

• Drilled Second Test Shaft aboveartesian

• Used 4 O-cells for skin friction andonly one to estimate end bearing

• Used self-consolidating concrete

• Test Shaft exceeded design by 20%

• 1st Production shaft on December 4at Contract Day 50

• Final Shaft for Piers InstalledJanuary 12

Aerial view of south

side

• January 27, 2008


9/15

1/16/20

Shaft DrillingAbutment 5

January 14, 2008 Pouring footing

at Pier 3January 14-15, 2008

Inside footingenclosure

at Pier 3

January 14-15, 2008

•February 20, 2008

First Pier Column – January 23rd Temp -9 to 3° Fahrenheit

Piers 2, 3, and 4 March 5, 2008

Mass Concrete


10/15

1/16/20

Cold Weather Protection

1st Precast Segment Pour Day 107 – January 30 Temp -14 to -2° Fahrenheit

Superstructure(main span – precast segments)(casting yard – longline casting)

All headings cast simultaneouslyHeated enclosuresLast Segment Cast June 6th

Corrosion ResistantDesign Details•Integral Wearing Surface -monolithic application of additionalconcrete above what is requiredstructurally

•Additional concrete precompressedboth directions with deck PT. 250psi compression longitudinal, 0 psitension transverse

•4.5" clear cover to top deckreinforcing and prestressing

•Top 0.5" reserved for deck millingand profiling

•Falsework Began Jan 28

•Final Concrete Placed May 31Approach Spans on Falsework

South Side Approach Span – Precast Yard in Background


11/15

1/16/20

Sidewalk Talks every SaturdayWith Peter Sanderson

More than 100 peopleshowed up routinely

Signs mounted on 10th Avenue Bridge for self-

guided tours

WEBSITEwww.mndot.gov

WEBCAMwww.mndot.gov

ponsore y:

Flatiron Manson JV (contractor)FIGG (Bridge Designer)Cemstone (Concrete Supplier)North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters(Carpenters Union)American Engineering TestingBulach Custom Rock

Casting the Future1800 Area Students

Each day 60 students attended 4hour course and site tour



12/15

1/16/20

Casting the Future 1,800 students created aglass mosaic concrete tilePhotos Courtesy of Figg Bridge

Students filled molds with concreteand recycled glass aggregate.Casting the Future


Casting the FutureStudents proudly display their works of

art made of concrete and recycled glass.


2nd Street OverpassPhotos Courtesy of Figg Bridge

Precast Segments Moved to River Staging Area Segments Placed May 25 to July 10


13/15

1/16/20

Superstructure – Span 2 PrecastSegment lengths - 13.5' to 16.5'Weights - 380 kips to 216 kips15 segments per cantilever

Span 2(precast main span)

Precasting is complete120 precast segments were placed in 47

daysPlaced up to 6 per day

Span 2 North Side Span 2 Cantilever Erection

Segment Installation - July 3, 2008 Preparing for closure pour


14/15

1/16/20

Closure Pours on July 16 and 24 North Approach Span 4 Cast in Place

Open to Traffic September 18, 2008 “Smart Bridge” SystemIntegrated Bridge Sensor Monitoring System covering four areas:

Support construction processes

Record of structural behavior (structure monitoring)

--

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)

Support of Construction Process

• Sensors are used to assist inmaking construction decisions

• Concrete maturity sensors areembedded in the concretewhen it is poured

• Sensors report when theconcrete has achieved therequired strength before thenext operation can begin

• Temperature gauges are alsoused to monitor the core heatof large concrete elements

• This helps to prevent crackingdue to differentialtemperatures(outer surface vs. core)

Structural Behavior and Monitoring

• Concerted effort by Mn/DOT, FHWA, and University of Minnesota

• Sensors embedded or mounted to the bridge provide informationto engineers about the structural behavior of the bridge


15/15

1/16/20

Documents

handout Dan Dorgan 2of2 6pp.pdf