Scribd
Upload
124 views36 pages

Gerald Desmond Bridge Workshop 2010

The document provides information about a workshop for the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement project. It discusses the project background and objectives, existing bridge conditions, funding and schedule, proposed design including a cable-stayed main span, procurement process, and addresses questions from attendees. The replacement bridge aims to improve safety and traffic while meeting seismic standards for a 100-year design life.

Uploaded by

juho jung
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
124 views36 pages

Gerald Desmond Bridge Workshop 2010

The document provides information about a workshop for the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement project. It discusses the project background and objectives, existing bridge conditions, funding and schedule, proposed design including a cable-stayed main span, procurement process, and addresses questions from attendees. The replacement bridge aims to improve safety and traffic while meeting seismic standards for a 100-year design life.

Uploaded by

juho jung
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 36

Gerald Desmond Bridge

Design-Build Industry Workshop


August 10, 2010
Aug. 10 Workshop

Questions? Email
gdbridge@polb.com
Or call 562.980.4983
Agenda

 Introduction and Purpose


 Scope of Work
 Budget & Funding
 Schedule
 Technical Information
 RFQ
 RFP
 Question and Answers
Douglas A. Thiessen
Managing Director, Engineering
Port of Long Beach
Introduction

 Project history
 EIR certification and approved alternative
 NEPA update
 Adjacent Port facilities
 Ownership transfer to State
Project Location

Project
Limits

Bridge
Gerald Desmond Bridge
 42 years old
 Carries 15% of all U.S. waterborne
container cargo
 Low Sufficiency Rating
 Replacement warranted when a bridge’s
rating is less than 50
 GDB 2007 rating was 43 (after bridge was
seismically retrofitted)
Current Bridge

8
Project Objectives

 Meet Caltrans geometric and seismic


standards
 100-year life
 Signature span
 Improve safety
 Reduce traffic hazards
 Improve traffic volume
 Improve vessel passage and safety
under the bridge
Project Limits
Status of Design Plan

 About 25% complete,


including:

 Cable stay main span


 High and low level approaches
 Right of way
 Utility relocations
 Roadways and site civil
 Aesthetics
Scope of Design-Build Contract

 Project-related utility relocations


 Foundations
 East and West interchanges (inc. low-
level approaches, some related
demolition and clearing)
 High level approaches
 Cable stay main span
Scope of Work (cont.)

 Work not included in


design-build contract:
 Major long lead time and some
third party utility relocations

 Tidelands oil field work


(abandonments, re-drilling, oil
field pipeline relocations)

 Demolition and clearing of


existing bridge, approaches and
other items
Project Features

Main Bridge
High Level Approaches
Low Level Approaches
PARSONS HNTB
Design-Build Costs
Amount
Design-Build Costs (Millions)
Cable-Stayed Bridge $ 240
High-Level Approaches $ 215
Low-Level Approaches $ 210
Interchanges / Roadway $ 70
Utilities $ 10
Demolition (by contractor) $ 5
Total Design-Build Costs $ 750
Remaining Port Costs
Amount
Remaining Port Costs (Millions)
Program Management / Construction Management $ 95*
Utilities and ROW $ 90
Other $ 15

Total Remaining Port Costs $ 200

Total Project Costs $ 950


*(deducted the design costs on previous slide)
Coordination Required

• Other major nearby projects (ongoing):

a. Middle Harbor Redevelopment


b. Ocean Blvd Rail Improvements
c. Heim Bridge Replacement (Caltrans/ACTA)
d. I-710 Improvement (Metro) EIR
Eric Shen
Director, Transportation Planning
Port of Long Beach
Committed Funding Sources
Amount
Description of Committed Grants (Millions)
Federal Highway Bridge Program (prior to FY10) $ 10.0

FederalSAFETEA-LU $ 90.0

Federal Appropriation (prior to FY09) $ 6.1

Federal Highway Bridge Program $ 201.9

State Prop. 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Funds (TCIF) $ 250.0

State SHOPP (Programmed in 4/2010) $ 49.8

Los Angeles County Call for Projects (2007 and 2009) $ 28.6
Total Committed Grants $ 636.4
Total Funding Plan

Amount
Summary of Current Funding Plan (Millions)
Total Committed Grants $ 636.4
Local Match and EstimatedGap Covered by Port Funds $ 113.6
Other Public Funding Sources Being Pursued $ 200.0
Proposed Project Funding $ 950.0
Schedule
 Aug. 9, 2010 EIR certified
 Sept. 2010 RFQ Release
 Nov. 2010 Receipt of SOQs
 Nov. 2010 Anticipated CTC Approval of D/B
authority under Design-Build
Demonstration Program
 Dec. 2010 Anticipated NEPA approval;
prequalification of proposers
based on SOQs
 Dec. 2010 –
April 2011 Draft RFP
Schedule (cont.)

 April 2011 Caltrans/FHWA review and


approval of final RFP
 June 2011 Release final RFP to
prequalified proposers
 Fall 2011 Proposals due
 Late 2011 Selection of best value proposal
SemyonTreyger
Greg Orsolini
Bridge Design Managers, Parsons/HTNB
Proposed Structure

 Preliminary bridge typeselection


 Cable-stayed bridge (2,000 ft.
long)
 Single-mast towers
 Shear links
 Composite deck
 Approach viaducts with 270 ft.
max. spans
 Foundation types and locations
Main Span Bridge Layout

Elevation

PARSONS HNTB
Main Span Towers

PARSONS HNTB
Main Span Typical Section

Typical Section

PARSONS HNTB
Approach Viaducts

Minimum Width Section Maximum Width Section

Plan and Elevation


PARSONS HNTB
Technical Requirements

To be completed by Parsons/HNTB JV prior to


RFP:
 Bridge type selection
 Project-specific design criteria
 Seismic ground motions
Technical Requirements (cont.)

• Caltrans standard specifications as modified to


reflect the design-build approach
• Design-Build contractor responsible for obtaining
design-approval (required as a result of
deviations from the selected Bridge Type). Details
in RFP
• Design-Build contractor responsible for ROW and
Utility relocations (required as a result of
deviations from the concept design alignment
and foundation layout). Details in RFP
Technical Data Available

Phase I
Initial Site Assessment March 2003

Phase II
Contamination sampling Prior to final RFP
Preliminary Geotech Report 2005
Final Geotechnical Report Prior to final RFP
Potholing information Prior to final RFP
Indicator Pile Program Prior to final RFP
Patrick Harder
Nossaman, LLP
Procurement

 Jointly procured with Caltrans


 Two-step process (dates in “schedule” slides)
 Step 1 - Request for Qualifications
 RFQ released
 Receipt of Statements of Qualification
 Prequalify teams based on technical design,
construction experience, labor force availability,
other non-price factors
Procurement (cont.)

 Step 2 – Request for Proposals


 Release draft RFP to prequalified proposers
 Industry review
 Review draft procurement/contract documents
 Meetings with proposers
 Release final RFP
 Submission of Proposals
 Selection of best value proposal
 Port considering payments to unsuccessful proposers
for work product (proposals and ATCs)
Conflict of Interest

 Port developing Conflict of Interest Policy


 Will be attached to RFQ
 Current Port consultants generally
prohibited from participating on a
proposer team
 Policy will describe process to request
exceptions for certain consultants
 Likely no exceptions for Port consultants
developing contract documents or providing
procurement services
Questions and Answers

Email:
gdbridge@polb.com
Project Website:
www.polb.com/bridge

You might also like