1. Design-Build in Minnesota Minnesota Department of Transportation

2. Presentation Outline Why Design-Build Design-Build Laws Design-Build Projects Questions

3. Why Use Design-Build ? Speed Innovation Risk Transfer Streamlining Resources (internal and external)

4. Design-Build Background The Early Days: 1995 – 2001 – Three Low Bid Design-Build Projects – I-35 In Lakeville $7.6M – TH 100 in Golden Valley$15 M – TH 14 in District 6$10 M

5. Best-Value Legislation (2001) – Joint Legislation between Mn/DOT and AGC – Number of Projects can not exceed 10% – Best-Value or Low Bid – Single Step Process (RFP) Low Bid Only, No Stipend – Two-Step Process (RFQ, RFP) Not more than 5 teams short listed

6. Legislation Facts – Formula = Price / Technical Score or – Formula = Price + Time / Technical Score – Stipends Minimum 0.2% of Estimated Cost of Design and Construction

7. Programmatic Approach – Hired Consultants to develop documents Contract RFQ RFP Evaluation Manual Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) Process Standards – Industry Input

8. Design-Build Background 2002 to 2007 (Best-Value Approach) – ROC 52 $232 Million – I-494 $135 Million – TH 212 $238 Million – Oronoco 52 $37 Million – TH 10/32 $ 8 Million – D4 Signs $ 1 Million

9. Design-Build Perceptions Good Innovation on Several Projects Fewer Claims / Lower Cost Growth Great project management approach Cost Programmatic Approach

10. An Unprecedented Event August 1, 2007

11. Project Scope

12. Procurement Timeline August 1 – Bridge Collapse August 2 – Draft RFQ August 4 – Issue RFQ August 23 – Issued RFP Sep 14 – Tech Proposals Sep 18 – Price Proposals Sep 18 – Interviews Sep 19 - Letting

15. How Did it Turn Out? Procurement – 6 Weeks (collapse to letting) Schedule – Open to traffic 365 days after letting Budget – 2% Cost Growth (not including incentives) Claims – Minimal, waived with “no excuse bonus” Quality – Exceptional

16. Challenges I-35W Bid Protest I-35W Lawsuit Legislation Changes Industry Reaction

17. Moving Forward with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

18. Five Projects  TH 2 Box Culvert $ 2.2M  Bridges of Mower County $12.8 M  TH 169 Saint Peter $16.5M  TH 610 $47.8M  TH 13/101 (Savage) $20.0M  TOTAL $99.3 M ARRA Projects

19. Saint Peter  Reconstruction of TH 169 through Historic Saint Peter  Business Impacts  Issue RFP – April 8  Letting – May 11  Open to Traffic – Nov 16  Five Bids (Best-Value)

20. Design-Build Beyond ARRA Contractor Innovations

21. Hastings Bridge Project

26. Contractor 1

27. Contractor 2

28. Contractor 3

29. 169/494 Interchange ($125M) Elk Run ($34M) – Diverging Diamond ATC TH 55 ($10M) - Alternate Pavement Bid – Rehab Maryland Ave ($14.5M) – Highways for Life, use of SPMT bridge Other Projects

30. 4 th Street Ramp to 35W ($15M) I-35E MnPass ($80M) Rural Conflict Warning System ($2.5M) Baudette Bridge – International Crossing Potential Projects

31. Better Acceptance by Employees General Acceptance by Industry – Contractors are getting good at DB – Designers like recent innovation Innovation = $ Savings Cost Concerns still exist – need to manage risk Short-Listing and Best-Value Concerns Current Perceptions

32. Thank You