AGC of TEXAS Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch

Transcription

1 AGC of TEXAS Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch THOMAS L. JOHNSON, Executive Vice President Joint AGC/TxDOT Committee Meeting February 13, 2012 Minutes 1. Words of welcome Attendees AGC Members TxDOT AGC Staff Johnny Weisman Bob Lanham John Barton Tom Johnson Joe Ballenger, Jr. Chad Clark John Obr Jennifer Newton John Rempe Bill Gibson Bill Hale Lee Taylor Brad Everett Dan Williams Toribio Garza A.P. Boyd Jim Andoga Bill Hasbrook Carol Rawson Kristen Ogden Joe Forshage Clint Henson Russell Zapalac Paul Causey Brad Bankston Tim Creson Thomas Bohuslav Robert Hall Robert Adamson 2. Review minutes from November 14, 2011 meeting The minutes were reviewed and there were no comments. 3. Discuss status of program A. Review monthly letting schedule FY 2012 Lettings for the Remainder of FY 2012 (in millions) Month State Local Other Let Let Obligations Totals March $ 119 $ 51 $ 15 $ 184 April $ 133 $ 10 $ 10 $ 152 May $ 302 $ 101 $ 38 $ 441 June $ 311 $ 85 $ 39 $ 435 July $ 504 $ 23 $ 1 $ 527 August $ 814 $ 161 $ 49 $ 1024 Year Total $ 3,604 $ 612 $ 401 $ 4,618 B. Review projected letting FY 2013 Lettings for the FY 2013 (in millions) State Local Other Month Totals Let Let Obligations Year Total $ 3,460 $ 589 $ 1,316 $ 5,364 C. Federal funding and effect on letting schedule TxDOT stated current letting plans for FY 2012 are based on the amount of funds the federal Highway Trust Fund receives each year and is allocated to highways (about 30% below current funding). TxDOT stated they are developing action plans to address a late increase in funds if congress provides funds at current or near current levels. TxDOT AGC of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch P.O. Box 2185 ~ Austin, Texas ~ Phone: (512) ~ Fax: (512) ~

2 stated they are working to have a year s worth of plans backlogged and that projects scheduled for FY 2013 will be prepared for letting in late FY 2012 or early FY D. Report on current and proposed design-build projects TxDOT stated they expect to complete the DFW connector in September TxDOT stated they will pursue the Grand Parkway (GP) project as a design-build (DB) project only. TxDOT stated they received 7 DB and 5 concession qualification packages. TxDOT stated they intend to shortlist by February 24, 2012, issue a draft RFP by March 5, and accept proposals in September and have ground breaking in the spring of TxDOT stated GP does not count against their 3 allowances to use DB. The Horseshoe qualifications are due February 22 and TxDOT expects to shortlist by March 30 with a draft RFP issued in early April. E. Report on current and proposed CDA projects On projects underway, SH 130 sections 5 and 6 are expected to be opened in early fall 2012; the NTE is 20% complete with opening expected in June 2015; and the LBJ is 50% complete with opening expected in December Future Projects IH 35W is contingent on TIFIA funding (answer expected in March) and if TIFIA funding is approved they are considering a concession procurement for section 3a and designbid-build (DBB) procurement for section 3b. IH 35E qualifications are due March23 and scope is currently undecided. Environmental clearance has been obtained. The RFQ for IH 35E is a dual procurement but TxDOT expects to make a decision on which method will be used before the RFP is released. SH 183 will be pursued after IH 35E but less than 10% of funds have been identified. SH 288 requires primacy resolution and the procurement is expected to be accomplished through concession. US 290 will be pursued through multiple procurement methods. TxDOT stated many of these projects require a1420 committee to be established and require 1420 decisions. F. FY 2012 Routine maintenance contract district letting budget and schedule TxDOT stated the total budget for contracted pavement work for fiscal year 2012 is $333 million. This does not include a recently approved $64 million request for a transfer from their operating budget (105) to their contract budget (144). The total contracted budget for FY 2012 is $524 million. TxDOT stated this is a significant increase (30%) over previous year s budgets. 4. Discuss status of Standard Specification rewrite TxDOT stated the consultant contract will be signed soon and phase 1 work for updating current specifications. The update will be work to include current special provisions and special specifications in the standard specification items. TxDOT stated the specification rewrite is a 2 year project. 2

3 AGC asked if the current draft special specifications for ACP were part of the specification rewrite and TxDOT stated they were. AGC stated they would like to discuss the specifications before writing begins. 5. Discuss status of railroad right-of-entry agreement process TxDOT stated they are working on a meeting date with the UP Railroad to finalize the agreement to have TxDOT process ROE agreements. TxDOT stated they are continuing to work with the railroads to analyze and address lowboy crossings and differentials in grade. 6. Discuss status of subcontractor certification/approval TxDOT stated they are working with the FHWA to fully develop the program to rely on contractor certifications for subcontractor approvals and reviews. TxDOT stated this process will end the district review of subcontracts and the Construction Division will perform audits with the Office of Civil Rights (EEO reviews). TxDOT stated FHWA wants to include reviews for local government projects in the requirement and program discussion as well. 7. Discuss contract administrative requirements for locally administered projects AGC stated they are seeing significantly different requirements for locally administered projects, extremes from lack of inspection to excessive documentation requirements. AGC stated TxDOT s inspection and contract administration program should be used by local governments. TxDOT stated their new Local Government Project Office will be challenged to implement uniform procedures and TxDOT will be asking the AGC for input during the development of a program. TxDOT stated they would be conducting training for local governments, consultants, vendors, TxDOT staff, and contractors. 8. Discuss proposed SW3P Special Specification and Certification AGC asked the status of the proposed contractor SW3P certification. TxDOT stated they are working with FHWA on a guidance document and inspection form that will agree with the special provision. TxDOT stated they agreed with and accepted the AGC s comments and they expect to include the certification requirement with the April 2012 lettings. 9. Discuss PCMS Item 6834 and Purchasing Specs AGC stated they found differences between TxDOT purchasing specifications and construction contract specific requirements and stated they believed there should be uniformity between the two. AGC requested TxDOT review the current versions and ask that the non-substantive changes be resolved in current projects. TxDOT agreed to review the requirement and address for projects. 10. Discuss TxDOT organization chart TxDOT reviewed the latest organization chart. New hires are Herman Horn, Director, Office of Civil Rights (includes DBE and HUB programs); Bob Kaufman, Chief 3

4 Communications Officer; and Russell Zapalac, Chief Planning and Projects Officer. TxDOT stated they are hiring staff for a Risk Management Office and staff for a Local Government Oversight Office. TxDOT stated the ROW and Environmental Divisions may be moved to other areas of responsibilities in the future as the organizational structure continues to be refined. TxDOT stated the Lead District Engineers for the metro, urban, and rural districts were not supervisors of the district engineers but were to assist the Executive Director in managing communications with districts. AGC asked who the districts reported to and TxDOT responded that the district engineers report directly to the Executive Director, but that issues will be resolved with the appropriate member of the Administration based on the department s functional responsibilities. For example, engineering and contract issues are the responsibilities of the Chief Engineer while personnel issues relating to a district engineer would be handled by the Executive Director. AGC expressed concern over continuity and uniformity around the state. AGC suggested the Lead District Engineers be invited to the Joint Committee meetings and TxDOT agreed. 11. Discuss vehicle removal Special Specification 5997, Vehicle Removal AGC expressed concerns about their liability in removing vehicles. AGC stated adding a contractor in the loop of removing vehicles adds another step to the process. AGC requested restrictions on the use of the special specification and asked for clarification on intent. AGC stated the special specification has been discussed in some districts for a broad use. AGC also stated that this may conflict with other city programs for vehicle removal. TxDOT stated the provision is intended for locations where there is no harbor for vehicles between median barriers. TxDOT stated they would review the statutes that govern and provide guidance on use. TxDOT stated use of the special specification requires approval of the Construction Division Director. 12. Discuss asphalt tiers(and added at the meeting, payment methods for asphalt) AGC asked TxDOT the status of requiring Tiers and bid options. AGC stated they want TxDOT to continue the requirement for Tiers and stated there have been significant savings as a result. AGC stated that including aggregates in the Tier in some cases has caused confusion. TxDOT stated current policy is in the Russel Lenz memorandum of May 20, 2011 and the directive is still in effect. TxDOT stated they are asking TTI to conduct a study to show the benefits and provide recommendations. TxDOT also stated they will be discussing with industry further and will be surveying the districts before making a final decision on future direction. AGC stated they would like TxDOT to continue the requirement that asphalt be paid by the gallon. AGC stated work is performed by the gallon measurement is more accurate by the gallon. TxDOT agreed and stated they would continue to require that asphalt be paid for by the gallon. 4

5 13. Review letter from Phil Wilson on approval of job classifications The AGC thanked TxDOT for their support and efforts in revising wage classifications and the update to wage rates. AGC stated Texas highway classification changes were significant and Texas is the only state known to have undertaken such a major revision. 14. Discuss LCCA Report AGC discussed a recent report on TxDOT s use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for pavement selection. It was stated the report, from a source outside of TxDOT, supported LCCA and recommended concrete and asphalt pavement alternates be included in the plans for projects greater than $5 million. AGC asked TxDOT if there were any changes to their program. AGC supported TxDOT s engineering one pavement design for each project. TxDOT stated LCCA was a good tool for the planning phase and did not agree with the report s conclusion that LCCA should be used in the bidding process for all projects valued at more than $5 million. No action was being taken other than awareness. 15. Discuss oilfield funding of repair to highways AGC asked if TxDOT had procedures to address acceptance of funds from the oilfield industry for payment of damages to highways. TxDOT stated that some of their roads were turned back to gravel due to oilfield traffic damage. TxDOT stated they were requesting an emergency minute order approval that would allow the Executive Director to accept donations from the oilfield industry without Commission approval. TxDOT stated they have an internal task force working on recommendations for funding repair to highways damaged by oilfield traffic. 16. Discuss status of Webinar for ride quality AGC asked the status of the ride quality Webinar and requested that TxDOT resend the ride guidance to districts. TxDOT stated they are working on a date for the Webinar and they would resend the guidance document. 17. Discuss providing pre-bid questions and answers on the Web TxDOT requested input from AGC on maintaining pre-bid questions on the Web. It was stated that if changes in the plans are needed, they should be accomplished through an addendum. It was stated that pre-bid answers are not contractual and that putting the questions and answers on the Web will deter questions. It was stated that some questions are confidential and some are public. It was stated that the cut-off time after which no questions could be asked/answered or placed on the Web could be an issue. It was stated that the effort to do this for all projects was significant and it was suggested that if done, it be limited to large projects. AGC stated that addressing some questions and addenda was important for apples to apples bids and AGC restated their support for issuing late addenda to save the job for the letting. 5

6 18. Discuss change orders for others to work within contracts AGC stated that TxDOT used a maintenance contractor to perform the work within their project limits for work a construction contractor was negotiating prices. AGC stated the traffic control provided by the maintenance contractor was not safe and that they incur additional liability when others work within their project limits. AGC asked TxDOT to consider the impact to their cost, including cleanup work. TxDOT understood the concerns and stated they would discuss restricting other contractors within limits with the districts. 19. Discuss drought and considerations for vegetation establishment AGC stated that while there has been recent precipitation, lake levels and aquifers are low and that there are restrictions on use of water. TxDOT stated they will work with contractors to accept projects with vegetative establishment periods remaining and make other considerations. It was stated that the Russel Lenz May 17, 2011 memorandum should be followed. 20. Discuss status of consultant testing option AGC asked the status of the special provision and implementation of contractor optional consultant testing. TxDOT stated that they do not yet have a consultant under contract and needed to address funding. 21. Discuss use of consultant construction engineering and inspection AGC asked the status of TxDOT s use of consultants for construction inspection. TxDOT stated the US 75 project in the Dallas District will be consultant engineering and inspection and a IH 35 project in the Waco District will be inspection supplemental to TxDOT forces. AGC stated projects are administered efficiently and answers are timely if TxDOT is in charge and the point of contact. 22. Discuss payment of mobilization considering material-on-hand AGC stated language in Item 500 limits reimbursement to less than the full amount for bonds and insurance if work is suspended for seasons or other reasons. TxDOT agreed and will issue a special provision for the item to change the language. TxDOT stated they would apply the change retroactively through a change order. 23. Items from the floor There were none and the meeting was adjourned. Thomas L. Johnson Secretary, Joint AGC/TxDOT Committee 6