Laserfiche WebLink
1. Temporary Shoring. The cost of temporary construction shoring is much higher than <br /> anticipated. The contractor typically rents a portion of this material and bids received by <br /> the contractor were high. The shoring work is highly variable from bridge to bridge and <br /> each must be designed by a structural engineer specifically for the loads expected on the <br /> bridge. The Garfield Bridge is a difficult bridge to compare with prices received on other <br /> projects. <br /> 2. Time Constraints. Although this is hard to quantify, the construction time constraints <br /> placed on this work have compressed the construction time table which can tend to <br /> increase costs. There is a need to have the work substantially completed by winter to allow <br /> the bridge to be fully open and free of traffic control over the winter months. The City's <br /> access to ARRA funding is also time sensitive. <br /> 3. Expansion Joint. The work requires replacement of the expansion joint on each side of <br /> the bridge. This joint is no longer used on bridges and the replacement work is highly <br /> specialized and much more expensive than expected. Leaking joints are the root cause of <br /> the deterioration of piers 3 and 6. <br /> 4. Micro Piles. The use of micro piles is a relatively new technology that enables the <br /> Garfield Bridge rehabilitation work to be focused on strengthening the damaged piers <br /> rather than replacing them, generally resulting in a more cost effective design. Micro piles <br /> are a versatile tool and can be placed in confined areas making them an ideal choice for the <br /> Garfield Bridge which has a very tight working space. The use of micro-piles is somewhat <br /> rare and specialized. As with other elements of the work, it is very hard to find direct <br /> comparisons to estimate construction cost as each pile must be designed and tested <br /> specifically for its location. The design engineers, IDOT and City engineering staff are in <br /> agreement that the use of micro-piles, while more expensive than estimated, is still less <br /> costly than removing and replacing piers 3 and 6. <br /> Recommend Award <br /> IDOT recommends that the City proceed with the work. Following discussions with IDOT and <br /> Halverson, City staffrecommends that the City Council authorize the necessary funding and <br /> concur with IDOT awarding the project to Halverson Construction Company. The following <br /> reasons are given as justification to move ahead with the project. <br /> 1. Time. Construction costs will tend to increase with time. Forcing a contractor to bid this <br /> fall on work to be completed in the late fall and spring/ summer of 2010 will tend to <br /> increase bids due to the unknown cost of materials in the coming year. Further, the inflow <br /> of ARRA funding is beginning to absorb the construction industries capacity to accomplish <br /> work. The bidding marketplace in 2010 is anticipated to be less competitive resulting in <br /> higher prices. <br /> 2. Project Design. The project design meets IDOT's requirements and will not change. No <br /> information has been offered by either IDOT or the apparent low bidder to suggest changes <br /> in design that will significantly reduce costs. With no substantial changes in the design <br /> required, rebidding the project is not likely to produce a change in cost, only a change in <br /> the Engineer's construction cost estimate due to the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Delaying <br /> the project does allow further deterioration to occur which will increase costs. <br /> 3. Funding. The City is using a substantial amount of ARRA funding that must be obligated <br /> by January 2010. With no real decrease in costs expected and in fact the expectation of <br /> even higher costs in upcoming months, there is no reason to gamble with the Federal <br /> funding by pushing this project back to the latest date possible. <br /> Page � 3 <br />