Americas InterchangeProposal Evaluation

Board of Directors PresentationFebruary 26, 2010

Agenda

• Project Overview• Procurement Process• Evaluation Process• Next Steps• Questions and Answers

Scope of Work

PROPOSED PROJECT

FUTURE PROJECT

JOE BATTLE

BLVD. / LP 375

Project Funding

Basic Information• Total Project Cost = $146M• ARRA (Stimulus) Funding

― TxDOT ARRA Funds $75M― MPO ARRA Funds $21M

• Additional Funding ― State Infrastructure Bank Loan Backed by

Transportation Reinvestment Zone― TxDOT Funds via Pass-Through Financing

Procurement ProcessTwo Step Process• Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

– Issued June 11, 2009– Received July 8, 2009– Evaluation Completed

• Short List of Proposers– Announced July 30, 2009

• Request for Detailed Proposals (RFDP)– Issued November 18, 2009– Received February 11, 2010– Evaluation Process

Short Listed Proposers

Team Make-Up• Americas Gateway Builders

– Zachry Construction Corporation– CH2M Hill– Frank X. Spencer and Associates Inc.– Montoya PR– Structural Engineering Consultants– Quantum Engineering Consultants

Short Listed Proposers

Team Make-Up• Paso Del Norte Constructors

– Austin Bridge & Road– Huitt-Zollars– Dan Williams Company– aci Consulting– Aguilera and Associates– Border Research Solutions– CEA Engineering Group– Frank X. Spencer and Associates Inc.– Maldonado/Burkett Intelligent

Transportation Systems, LLP

Short Listed Proposers

Team Make-Up• J.D. Abrams, LP

– Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.– EPI Global, Inc.– The Laster Group– P.E. Structural Consultants, Inc.– Kellogg Brown and Root Services, Inc.– HDR Engineering Inc.– Moreno Cardenas Inc.– Parkhill, Smith and Cooper Inc.– Frank X. Spencer and Associates Inc.– SLI Engineering Inc.– Rodriguez Engineering Laboratories

RFDP Evaluation Process

Basic Information• Evaluation Team• Best Value Process• Schedule• Results

Evaluation TeamOverview

• Document Control• Pass/Fail Advisor• Oversight Committee• Price Evaluation Committee• Technical Evaluation Team

– Evaluation & Selection Recommendation Committee– Technical Advisors

• Senior Advisory Committee• CRRMA Board

RFDP Evaluation Process

Best Value Process• Qualitative Technical Score

– Innovation– Value Added Concepts– Pass/Fail Analysis– Without Pricing Information– 30% of Total Proposal Score

Major CategoriesProject Management Plan = 43 Points

Development Plan = 47 PointsCommunity Involvement Plan = 5 Points

Value-Added Concepts = 5 Points

RFDP Evaluation Process

Best Value Process• Development Price Proposal Evaluation

– Price Proposal Value Calculation– Schedule Adjustment Factor– Lane Rental Differential Factor– “Blind” Scoring– 70% of Total Proposal Score

Development Price+

Schedule Adjustment Factor+

Lane Rental Differential Factor=

Price Proposal Value

RFDP Evaluation ProcessFinal Total Proposal Score• Qualitative Technical Score Converted to

Technical Score (Numerical)

Qualitative RatingEvaluator’s Potential

Scoring Range

Excellent 100

Good 80

Fair 60

Poor 40

Unsatisfactory 0

RFDP Evaluation ProcessFinal Total Proposal Score• Qualitative Factor Calculated Using

Technical Scores (Numerical)

Qualitative Factor = Technical ScoreHighest Technical Score

TECHNICAL Component of Final Score

RFDP Evaluation ProcessFinal Total Proposal Score• Price Proposal Value Converted to Price

Factor– Development Price– Schedule Adjustment Factor– Lane Rental Differential Factor

Price Factor = Lowest Price Proposal ValuePrice Proposal Value of Proposal

FINANCIAL Component of Final Score

RFDP Evaluation ProcessFinal Total Proposal Score• Weighted Price Factor added to Weighted

Qualitative Factor

Best Value Proposal Having the Highest FTPS

FTPS = (Price Factor x 70) + (Qualitative Factor x 30)

Evaluation ScheduleOverview• Proposals Received – February 10-11• Document Control – February 11-12• Pass/Fail Analysis – February 15• Price Proposal Analysis – February 15-16• Technical Evaluation – February 15-19• ESRC Consensus Scoring – February 24

Evaluation ResultsThree Proposals Exceed

Maximum Amount Available to be Paid to the Design/Builder

The Board has two options:

Adjust the Scope and Request

Updated Proposals

Terminate the Procurement

GEC Team Recommends Adjusting the Scope and Requesting Updated Proposals

FHWA ConcurrenceTxDOT Concurrence

Next Steps

Overview• Value Engineering • Develop Project Cost Estimate• Develop Addendum 4• Review and Approval by TxDOT/FHWA• Issue Addendum 4• Updated Proposal Due Date ~ Early April• Re-Evaluate Revised Proposals• Seek CRRMA Board Approval of

Apparent Best Value Proposal

Questions?