December 2, 2014

 Introductions  Disclaimers  Ground Rules  Project Overview  CMGC RFP Overview  CMGC Process  ICE/EE Procurement  Design Consultant Contracts  Oversight Contracts  Questions

 MnDOT Hwy 53 Relocation District Team: ◦ Pat Huston – Project Manager ◦ Rob Ege – Design Engineer ◦ Andy Johnson – Construction Engineer ◦ Jeff Hall - Support  MnDOT ◦ Jay Hietpas – CO Project Management ◦ Kevin Hagness – CMGC Program Manager ◦ Kevin Western – Bride Design Lead/ Design Consultant Contracts  Our job is to ensure all proposers have the same information and to partner with the successful CMGC team and consultants.  Feel free to ask questions at any time.

 What is discussed today is informational only, meant to assist Proposers in pursuit of contracting opportunities on this project.  Proposers are responsible for following the final RFP(s).  If there are any discrepancies, submit a clarification request.

 This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the following Project Supplemental Information website: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/Dulu th/Hwy 53 Relocation RID/

As per the CMGC RFP: Pat Huston is the Single Point of Contact. Each Proposing team needs to identify a S.P.O.C.

 Relocate TH 53 in the area of the United Taconite Mine by November 15, This includes the construction of a new four-lane TH 53 facility that is complete and open to traffic and the removal of the existing TH 53 (including the removal of roadway facilities, bridges, and utilities) to allow for mining by November 15,  Design and construct a quality, cost effective project while minimizing future maintenance costs.  Avoid and Minimize impacts to the environment.  Minimize or eliminate future risk to MnDOT related to mining operations.  Minimize impacts to all stakeholders.

Based on Current Project Scope and Risk Profile the Total Estimated Construction Contract cost is: $125 to $165 Million * This includes City Utilities and Multi-use Trail on the Bridge

 Right of Way Access  Alignment and Profile  Permits  Utility Complexity  Mine Blasting/ Seismic  Rock Excavated RGGS  NEPA Schedule

 RGGS Parcels  DNR Parcels  Other

 Section 4f  Iron Formation  Environmental Justice  Wetlands  Geotechnical  NEPA Corridor

 COE Wetlands  NPDES  Drinking Water – MDH Design Reviews

 City of Virginia and Virginia Public Utilities ◦ 12”-18” Sanitary Sewer ◦ 12” Watermain ◦ Electric ◦ Gas  CenturyLink  Minnesota Power  Paul Bunyan  Mediacom

 United Taconite Blasts ◦ Every 7-10 days ◦ Occasionally closes TH 53 Traffic ◦ Vibration Monitoring for Concrete  Rock Excavated from RGGS Parcels ◦ Possibility that RGGS will want to retain ◦ Depends on Easement Negotiation and Mineral Value

 Alignment Corridors Identified in DRAFT EIS ◦ Deviation would require backup in NEPA process  No Construction Contracts until ROD ◦ Except for Early Steel Package at risk with State Funds  The preferred alignment must still be vetted through the draft and final EIS process with all build and no-build options. The final alignment will not be “final” until the completion of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

 Fall 2014: Proceed with contractor and designer selection  Late 2014/Early 2015: Publish Draft EIS for review/comment.  Late Summer of 2015: Publish Final EIS.  Fall of 2015: MnDOT publishes adequacy determination; FHWA publishes combined final EIS and Record of decision.

 Late Fall of 2015: Start Construction Contract  Reminder: This schedule is best case scenario and is subject to change.

 Test Foundations – Winter ◦ E2 West Pier Drilled Pile ◦ E2 West Pier Drilled Shaft  Rotosonic and Cores – Winter ◦ E2 West Pier ◦ E2 East Pier  Roadway Soil Borings – Dec 2014 ◦ E2 fill ins

December 2, 2014

One-step Best-Value Request for Proposals (RFP) Final CMGC RFP is currently advertised on MnDOT’s Consultant Services website: Thank you to those who submitted comments on the Draft CMGC RFP

A notification to Proposers has also been posted on MnDOT’s Consultant Services website to help Proposers identify what changed between the draft CMGC RFP and the final CMGC RFP. In the event of any discrepancies between this document and the final CMGC RFP, the final CMGC RFP shall take precedent.

Recommended Alternative The recommended alternative that is anticipated to be identified as the preferred alternative in the DEIS is E-2. For the purposes of the CMGC RFP, Proposers shall use E-2. Alternative E-2 may, or may not, be the final alternative eventually chosen through the environmental process.

Completion Date MnDOT’s current agreement with the mine requires TH 53 to be relocated by May, MnDOT is working on a time extension to the existing agreement. For the purposes of the CMGC RFP, TH 53 in the area of the United Taconite Mine is to be relocated by November 15, 2017.

Table Procurement Schedule MILESTONEDATE Issue CMGC RFPNovember 24, 2014 Project Informational MeetingDecember 2, 2014 Deadline for Proposers to Submit Requests for Clarification on the RFP December 12, 2014 Responses to Requests for Clarification on RFP Issued December 15, 2014 Deadline for Proposers to Submit ProposalDecember 19, 2014 InterviewsJanuary 8, 2015 CMGC Contractor SelectedJanuary 13, 2015 Notice to Proceed – P/T Services ContractFebruary 2015

Communications Pat Huston, Project Director, is the sole MnDOT contact person for clarification requests, communications about the project, the RFP, and Proposal submittals.

Communications CMGC programmatic questions shall be directed to Kevin Hagness, CMGC Program Manager:

Proposal Delivery, Content, Format Proposals shall not exceed 18 pages; not including cover letter, table of contents, section dividers, appendices, and required forms Resumes for Key Personnel shall not exceed two pages per position 2-11x17 pages allowed for Project Experience Table

CMGC Project Approach Bridge types under consideration noted in TH-53 Decision Matrix and supplemental project information.

Approach to Cost Estimating Sample estimate values do not need to reflect actual values for rates/prices. The sample estimate is only being used to demonstrate the approach to estimating is transparent.

Preconstruction Price Proposal Submitted in a separately sealed envelope Evaluated around an average Note your fully burdened hourly rates in the preconstruction price proposal form – MnDOT will do the calculations to determine the total cost

Addendums and Clarifications Proposers need to acknowledge all addendums and clarifications issued in their Proposals. RFP Clarification Request Forms can be found on MnDOT’s CMGC website: manager-general-contractor.html manager-general-contractor.html

Mandatory Technical Interviews Approximately one hour in length No handouts or formal presentations Will consist of set questions for all Proposers and clarification questions for each Proposer based on their Proposal Will not be scored separately – will be used as additional information in support and to clarify the information contained in the proposal Questions will not be provided to Proposers in advance of the interview Up to five representatives from Proposer’s team – must include PM, CM, Lead Cost Estimator and Project Principal Proposers must contact CMGC PM to schedule an interview time

Builder’s Risk Insurance Builder’s Risk insurance will be required on this project. MnDOT may acquire or may require the successful responder to purchase and maintain “All Risk” or equivalent Builder’s Risk policy for any executed construction contract(s) insuring the interest of MnDOT, the Contractor, and any tier of Subcontractor. MnDOT will, at their discretion, provide further details regarding the requirements for the Builder’s Risk policy prior to executing a construction contract(s) for the project.

Construction Services Fee Do not submit the Construction Services Fee Proposal Form, Exhibit 4, with the Proposal. The apparent successful Proposer is required to submit this form within five business days after the CMGC selection.

Conflict of Interest

Formal workshops for design review, risk, and cost estimating are anticipated to occur at the 30%, 60%, and 90% design milestones. For each of these milestones, the cost estimates will include an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE), Owner’s/Engineer’s Estimate and the CMGC’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC).

The ICE and an Engineer’s Estimate will be performed at the time of bid and will be used by MnDOT to validate the CMGC’s bid.

Further information available on MnDOT’s CMGC website: nst-manager-general-contractor.html

There will be one RFP advertised for two separate contracts for the ICE and the Owner’s/Engineer’s Estimating services.

Scope of work for both contracts is very similar: production-based, contractor-style estimates at each of the design milestones and at bid schedule analysis and development at each of the design milestones and at bid

Desired Skills: production-based, contractor-style estimating for major bridge projects of similar size, scope and complexity schedule analysis and development for major bridge projects of similar size, scope and complexity Relevant CMGC experience and an understanding of the CMGC process

Responder’s submission of a proposal is acknowledgement that Responder may be assigned, at the discretion of MnDOT, the ICE or the EE services contract.

Procurements Schedule RFP scheduled to be advertised early December, 2014 Proposals due early January, 2015 ICE and EE executed contracts by February, 2015

Continue to watch the MnDOT Consultant Services website for procurement updates, clarifications, and addendums: s.html

MnDOT’s CMGC Website: manager-general-contractor.html

Disclaimer What is discussed today is informational only. Proposers are responsible for following the final RFP(s). If there are any discrepancies, submit a clarification request.

One-step Request for Proposals (RFP) Final RFP is currently advertised on MnDOT’s Consultant Services website: ml ml

Developed matrix to compare alternatives Main issues identified Bridge design complexity Design and construction schedule Construction method Geotech Risk

CIP Concrete Arch Steel Truss Arch Steel Truss CIP Balanced Cantilever Segmental Steel Plate Girder Steel Delta Frame Suspension Single-Tower Cable Stayed

CIP Concrete Arch Steel Truss Arch Steel Truss CIP Balanced Cantilever Segmental Steel Plate Girder Steel Delta Frame Suspension Single-Tower Cable Stayed

CIP Concrete Arch Steel Truss Arch Steel Truss CIP Balanced Cantilever Segmental Steel Plate Girder Steel Delta Frame Suspension Single-Tower Cable Stayed

o Bridge plans can be completed quickly o Early steel contract – June 2015 o Complete plans – Fall 2015 o Steel erection allows for faster on-site construction o We needed type to develop design RFP

Project Understanding and Work Plan Company Background and Experience Key Personnel Availability and Experience Quality Management Plan Cost

Project Manager Bridge Lead(s) Roadway Lead Lead QC for Bridge Lead Geotechnical Engineer

Proposals due December 30, 2014 Selection Week of January 19-23, 2015 Notice to Proceed End of February 2015

Coordination required with: CMGC Peer Reviewer (Bridge) MnDOT Oversight (Roadway) ICE/EE Your team (Bridge, Roadway, Geotech, etc)  Communication will be important

First 30 days Make final decision on Bridge Type Determine additional Geotech needs First 90 days Finalize Preliminary Plans COMPLETE early steel plans Final Plans complete to 60% level Final Bridge Plan by Sept 2015

Your Design Staff Leads with: CMGC Peer Review Oversight MnDOT Allows for quick decisions Scheduled and just-in-time issue meetings 90 day ‘fast burn’ requirement

 RFP after the Design Consultant is Selected  Cover Tasks Necessary to assist MnDOT with: ◦ Roadway Design Review ◦ Project Management ◦ Construction Oversight/ Engineering ◦ Inspection Services  Proposals will be evaluated on a “best value” basis with 70% qualifications and 30% cost considerations.

 Design Phase ◦ Project Manager – full time ◦ Roadway Design Engineer – full time ◦ Communications Manager – ¼ time ◦ Geotechnical Engineer – ¼ time ◦ Hydraulics Engineer – full time ◦ CPM Schedule Reviewer – ¼ time ◦ Environmental Compliance Manager – ½ time ◦ Utility Coordinator - ¼ time

 Construction Phase ◦ Project Manager – ¼ time ◦ Communications Manager – ¼ time ◦ CPM Schedule Reviewer – ¼ time ◦ Environmental Compliance Manager – ½ time ◦ Utility Coordinator - ¼ time ◦ Office Manager – full time ◦ Lead Bridge Inspector – full time ◦ Lead Roadway Inspector – full time ◦ Roadway and Bridge Inspectors – full time ◦ Materials Testers – full time