16Q80036_SOW.docx

Procurement Request No. V3211009

STATEMENT OF WORK

GRS-IBS Cost Study

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) launched their Every Day Counts (EDC) Initiative to identify and deploy innovation aimed at reducing the time it takes to deliver highway projects, reduce design and construction costs, enhance safety, and protect the environment. Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil – Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) technology has been promoted through the first three rounds of EDC.

Instead of conventional bridge support technology, the GRS is built with alternating layers of compacted granular fill material and geosynthetic reinforcement to support the bridge. GRS is also used to build the integrated approach for a smooth transition from the bridge onto the roadway, to alleviate the "bump at the bridge" problem caused by uneven settlement between the bridge and approaching roadway. The technology offers unique advantages in the construction of small, single span bridges, potentially including:

Reduced construction time and cost, with costs reduced 25 to 60 percent from conventional construction methods.

Easy to build with common equipment and materials; easy to maintain because of fewer parts.

Flexible design that's easily modified in the field for unforeseen site conditions, including unfavorable weather conditions.

FHWA published design guidance to help construction companies and local agencies design, bid, and build GRS-IBS bridges. This guidance was published during the first round of EDC (in 2010). This guidance includes text, figures, and sample designs that provide explicit and detailed step-by-step instructions that local agencies and construction companies can use to design, bid on, and build GRS-IBS bridges. Since 2010, transportation agencies have used this guidance to design and/or construct more than 200 GRS-IBS bridges.[footnoteRef:1] [1: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/12051/12051.pdf]

Despite explicit instruction provided in the design guidance, FHWA has observed variance between expected costs and final costs for the construction of some GRS-IBS abutments. It is unclear if this deviation from expected costs is caused by deficient design guidance, or if it is caused by transportation agencies and construction companies that are not following the design guidance, are modifying the design guidance, and/or are applying it incorrectly. Although data from most projects demonstrate the cost benefits of this technology, results from other projects have shown it to not be economical relative to its estimated cost, or to conventional construction designs. The deviation from expected costs (sometimes lower sometimes higher) makes it difficult to calculate the actual benefits of the GRS-IBS design, and it is unclear if the solution is to modify the guidance or to require strict adherence to the guidance.

Objective The goal of this project is to understand why there has been deviance between actual construction costs and expected costs for GRS-IBS. This understanding is necessary to develop strategies to mitigate the potential for overbuilt designs that have performance far in excess of needs, overcomplicated designs that reduce the usability, misperceptions of risk, and overpricing that wastes resources. The findings from this work will be provided in the form of cost breakdowns and written recommendations.

Staffing Approach The contractor shall provide an individual or team that has recent experience (in the last 5 years) in the following areas:

In-depth knowledge of the construction industry and regional construction markets, including trends and pricing, as well as the tools required for performing estimating services which may include information from databases, contractor organizations, contractors, suppliers, and any other available sources.

Expertise to prepare related costs estimate and quotes.

Ability to translate production based estimates and to provide summary and detailed cost breakdowns.

Ability to review construction contract documents for quality concerning bidding and construction.

A thorough knowledge of bridge construction means, methods, and equipment.

Working knowledge of risk management strategies, including risk identification assessment, and cost quantification and assignment of the probability of occurrence.

Demonstrated, practical experience of using new innovative construction practices in transportation projects.

Demonstrated familiarity with GRS-IBS construction.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED MATERIAL

All materials to be reviewed as part of this work will be provided to the contractor by the Volpe Center by email or direct mail. A summary of the government furnished material is provided in Attachment 1.

TASKS

Task 1: Project Management Within two weeks following the contractor’s notice-to-proceed, the contractor shall attend a Kick-off meeting with Volpe Center and FHWA GRS-IBS Team. The kick-off meeting will be held via teleconference/webinar.

One week after the Kick-off Meeting the contractor shall submit a brief work plan listing the project staff and responsibilities and project schedule.

The contractor shall conduct status meetings with Volpe (and FHWA GRS-IBS Team, as appropriate) on an as-needed basis, to answer questions and provide technical support.

This task is expected to require 50 hours.

Deliverables:

Action Items from Kick-Off Meeting Work Plan Action Items from Status Meetings

Task 2: Review of Available Data and Collection of Additional Information The contractor shall assess the projects listed in Attachment 1.

FHWA (via Volpe) will provide the information they have collected on each of these GRS-IBS projects listed in Attachment 1 that includes location, geometry, material, abutment design parameters, and design and construction costs. The information provided to the contractor will be a organized for analysis in a logical and easy-to-compare format. The information shall be presented as collected and in a “normalized” format across all projects so that an apples-to-apples comparison can be made.

Attachment 1 contains a summary table describing the data that will be available. The contractor shall review the FHWA information and contact the project owners for additional information that is needed to adequately complete the subsequent tasks.

Necessary information includes that which is needed to answer the following questions (and any other relevant questions that arise during the analysis):

Were the GRS-IBS abutments designed per FHWA GRS-IBS guidance documents, including the hydraulic and scour analysis, and geotechnical investigation?

What were the deviations or enhancements (if any) in the abutment design, materials, and construction specifications? (This is not to include comparisons with Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls.)

Was there any additional project mitigation as a result of using a GRS-IBS design that would not have used with a conventional structure?

What design method (Load and Resistance Factor Design or Allowable Stress Design) did the designer use to prepare the plan sheets?

What is the traditional or conventional substructure design used by the project owner? What would have been used in-lieu of GRS-IBS? (This could include the use of culverts.)

Was the GRS-IBS abutment design modified during construction? What was changed?

What type of company received the award? (For example – 8a, DBE, small business, general contractor, bridge contractor, etc…) The contractor shall collect the same information for each GRS-IBS project, to the extent possible.

The contractor shall add any additional information into the provided spreadsheets and submit it to Volpe for comment and review. The contractor shall revise the spreadsheets following the receipt of Volpe comments.

This task is expected to require 100 hours.

Deliverables:

Draft Data Summary Final Data Summary

Task 3. Analysis and Reporting Task 3.1. GRS-IBS Construction Cost Analysis Using the information collected for the set of projects identified in Task 3, the contractor shall analyze a subset of 13 of the projects expected to be most informative to the goals of this research and develop estimated and constructed substructure costs for each of the selected bridge projects. The analysis will include:

a comparison of the itemized engineer’s estimate (available from the project documentation);

a breakdown of the contractor’s bid price (available from the project documentation);

itemized final construction costs (available from the project documentation);

an independent cost estimate made by the contractor for the as-built substructure;

a revised independent cost estimate made by the contractor for the as-built substructure by eliminating all non-critical alterations, enhancements or exceptions to the interim guidance; and an independent cost estimate made by the contractor for a conventional substructure the project owner would constructed in-lieu of GRS-IBS Independent cost estimation will be based on the regional labor rates, equipment rates, material quantities and the contractor’s own experience.

The contractor will provide a sample cost breakdown for Volpe review in terms of content, structure, and style. Following review and comment by Volpe, the contractor will revise the sample analysis and Volpe will submit it to FHWA for comments. Following receipt of those comments by Volpe, the contractor will provide a Draft Cost Analysis for all identified projects. Following review and comment by Volpe, the contractor will incorporate comments into the Revised Cost Breakdown..

This task is expected to require 665 hours.

Deliverables:

Draft Sample Cost Breakdown Revised Sample Cost Breakdown Draft Cost Analysis Final Cost Analysis Task 3.2. GRS-IBS Summary Analysis The contractor will also provide summary analysis of the cost comparison developed in Task 3.2 which will address items such as the following:

The impact of relevant cost drivers.

The reasons for significant differences between the original Engineer’s Estimate, awarded bid, and as-built GRS-IBS.

Did value engineering or constructability considerations modify project requirements for a more cost efficient GRS-IBS design?

Did the type of company that was awarded the project impact costs? (For example – 8a, DBE, small business, general contractor, bridge contractor, etc…) Were pre-bid and preconstruction meetings, workshops, and showcases effective in reducing costs?

Identify any market conditions or business factors that affected price?

Did the size of construction project influence costs?

Are there indications of potential confusion in how to estimate and bid the GRS-IBS items?

Is there an impact due to the number and type of bid items?

Are there key bid items to include in bid packages that could minimize price variations?

What level of detail is needed to effectively price the GRS-IBS structure?

How does the various ways to quantify bid items (by the lump sum, unit items, square area, linear foot, or incidental) affect risk perception and thus price?

Discuss how different contracting methods affect the prices. (For example - low bid, design build, CM/GC, or other) The contractor’s observations on these topics will be submitted to Volpe as a memo after which Volpe will arrange for a teleconference/webinar to address these topics in more detail.

Volpe will then submit this information (along with other gathered analysis) in a Draft Analysis to FHWA. Following review and comment by FHWA, Volpe will convene a teleconference/webinar with the contractor and FHWA to address any comments. The contractor will respond to any additional requests for additional analysis and submit a revised Analysis Memo.

This task is expected to require 110 hours.

Deliverables:

Memo on Analysis Topics Participation in Draft Analysis Meeting (with Volpe and Contractor) Participation in Final Analysis Meeting with (FHWA, Volpe, and Contractor) Revised Analysis Memo

Task 4. Recommended Updates to Current Guidance Documents Based on information obtained in the previous tasks, and the contractor’s expertise, recommendations to reduce the costs associated with GRS-IBS construction will be provided to Volpe. The recommendations are for modifications to the FHWA GRS-IBS current construction details, specifications, and methods in the following documents:

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim Implementation Guide FHWA-HRT-11-026 posted at:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/11026/11026.pdf

Sample Guide Specifications for Construction of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil-Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) FHWA-HRT-12-051 posted at:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/12051/12051.pdf

Generic GRS-IBS construction plan sheets posted at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/grs_ibs/resource.cfm These recommendations are to focus on items with the potential to reduce GRS-IBS cost escalation.

Additionally, the recommendations shall provide the best method for owners to structure the bid packages to minimize contractor risk and reasonably ensure best price. The recommendations should be based on the interim guidance and any non-critical alterations, enhancements or exceptions to the interim guidance should not be included in the bidding structure.

The contractor’s recommendations shall be submitted to Volpe as a memo after which Volpe will arrange for a teleconference/webinar to address these topics in more detail.

Volpe will then submit formal recommendations to FHWA. Following review and comment by FHWA, Volpe will convene a teleconference/webinar with FHWA and the contractor to address any comments.

This task is expected to require 90 hours.

Deliverables:

Memo on Recommendations Participation in Draft Recommendations Meeting (with Volpe and Contractor) Participation in Final Recommendations Meeting (with FHWA, Volpe, and Contractor)

TRAVEL

Travel is not authorized. All communication for each project assessment will be via telephone, e-mail, or web conferencing.

DELIVERABLES AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

Project deliverables will be required according to the format and dates outlined in the following table. All work will begin upon date of award and be completed by August 3, 2016.

*All deliverables shall be emailed to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

Attachment 1: Description of GRS-IBS Projects and Available Documentation

Table 1: List of GRS-IBS Projects

Monitored

Construction

Monitored

Construction

Monitored

Construction

Kay County

Monitored

Total

Table 2: Materials Available Describing Each GRS-IBS Project

Standard Documents, available for all projects

· Final Plan

· Bid Estimate(s)

Additional Documents, currently available for some projects (may be available upon request for other projects)

· Special Provisions

· Engineer Cost Estimates

· Media (Photos, Videos, etc)

· Agency’s Bid Documents

· Showcase Materials (Powerpoint Presentations of Completed Project)

· Project Update Correspondence

· Geotechnical Report

· Instrumentation and Monitoring Powerpoints

· Soil Engineering Powerpoints

· Bridge Inspection Report

· Hydraulic Analysis Report and Data Sheet

· Final Costs