This was published on Page One a bit ago but is worth sharing here.
The Transportation Cabinet announced earlier today that three professional teams will compete to build the I-65 bridge and interchange in Louisville. According to the release, nearly 500 people are registered for the March 1 pre-bid conference at the Kentucky International Convention Center.
From a release:
The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeks design-build teams of bridge- and road-building professionals that will be judged on their proven experience, innovative ideas, inclusion of minorities and women in the workforce and ability to deliver the best value on schedule.
-SNIP-
This meeting is mandatory for contractors who intend to be the lead of a design-build team. However, every company interested in bidding on the project should send a representative.
Under the RFQ, all teams will be required to submit their qualifications by April 2 and the cabinet will select the three competing finalists by April 16. Teams will spend the summer developing specific proposals that will include innovative concepts, technical designs and cost details.
The schedule calls for the winning team to be selected in October, allowing preliminary construction work to begin before year’s end. The massive construction project – which includes a new downtown I-65 bridge, overhauling the existing Kennedy Bridge, rebuilding the downtown Louisville interchange and new interstate connections in southern Indiana – is scheduled for completion on or before June 30, 2018.
To spur competition among the finalists, KYTC will offer $1.5 million stipends to the two teams not selected for the project. KYTC will retain all innovative concepts developed by the teams for possible use by the selected bidder. This best-practice approach has been used successfully in other states to lower overall project costs, spur innovation and speed construction.
You catch that?
They’re giving away $3 million worth of taxpayer funds to the two teams that don’t win.
29 responses so far ↓
1 Betsy // Feb 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Honestly! What is wrong with KYTC?! That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard of. I am quite sure KYTC could do a whole lot of paving in the Commonwealth with that money. This needs to be made public so that taxpayers can start chewing some KYTC fat! Maybe KYTC should ask Indiana on how bidding on bridge work should be done! Where is the outrage?!
2 Fleur-de-gris // Feb 23, 2012 at 8:43 pm
The design folks on these teams will actually have to do a LOT of design work in advance of a bid proposal – work for which it’s fair that they should be compensated. Different situation from the Sherman-Minton. The knee-jerk reaction is natural but, if you think through the merits and liabilities of the whole proposal, it may start to make sense. Do we just want the cheapest answer, even if it’s terribly resolved? Do we want to know what the design is, as well as the price tag? I know, you expect teams of designers to work weeks for free, at risk!
3 jake // Feb 23, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Sorry, not buying the argument that a company has to be compensated just to bid on something.
4 G'town Reader // Feb 23, 2012 at 10:27 pm
I understand paying for design work done with due diligence –IF all the resulting plans & proposals of the “paid” firms become the property of the state.
5 curtis morrison // Feb 24, 2012 at 2:49 am
Good catch, Jake.
6 Fleur-de-gris // Feb 24, 2012 at 7:24 am
Bidding on construction, no, I would agree that we wouldn’t want to pay for bid preparation.
This is design/build. In order to make a legitimate bid, the teams have to know what they’re going to propose to build. A significant amount of design work has to come before the bid even happens.
It’s not unusual. As the RFQ indicates, it can have significant advantages for the KYTC. (It’s actually not always a good deal for the designers and contractors, but….)
If we *don’t* want anyone paid for this advance work, we’ll get what we deserve: substandard after-the-fact design that can be built for cheap, with care taken to build for way less than a too-low lowest bid in order to protect a nice profit margin.
I think it would be *better* to hire a design team to complete all of the documents and then put it out for bid to contractors. Better (more fair) for the designers and contractors who aren’t put at risk before the scope of the job is completely defined. But a lot of public jobs are going this design/build way now, shifting as much risk as possible to the private sector.
7 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 7:26 am
You assume that the folks in charge of this debacle know what’s best.
In a perfect world, what you’re saying would be okay.
But we’re talking about a segment of state government that not only ignores what the public wants, ignores studies and reality but works vehemently to deny and cover things up.
8 Fleur-de-gris // Feb 24, 2012 at 7:48 am
I’m not assuming that at all. The scope of my comments is limited to the arrangement of this RFQ process. I don’t agree with many of KYTC’s bigger picture planning decisions – and I agree they’re often unresponsive to public will. That has nothing to do with this RFQ and the appropriateness of paying for the work people have to do.
9 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 7:52 am
Really?
Incompetent political appointees doling out $3 million has nothing to do with it?
In what world are you living?
10 Fleur-de-gris // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:05 am
A world in which businesses need to be paid to function. This project represents thousands of hours of design, engineering, and supervision work. $3m is a big number to us, but in the scope of this project, it may actually represent a slim compensation for the time spent.
How would you propose it be handled? What, today, would you take bids for with no design documents to base them on?
11 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:13 am
Just need to repeat this comment.
You’re not basing your opinion in reality. You’re also allowing your line of work to cloud your judgment.
That’d be puppies and rainbows in a perfect world but this is Kentucky. A state where the KYTC regularly lies and spins for political purposes. The more you act as if this is a-okay and business as usual while ignoring that reality, the more clouded you appear.
12 Roger // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:16 am
If the company I work for tried to charge for quotes, we’d be laughed out of business. It’s part of the cost of doing business.
13 David // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:21 am
This actually quite common in construction – especially complex projects. The number looks high, but relative to the scope of the project, it is not. This project (assuming it really is going forward?) is not one you just want the lowest bidder. I guarantee you that will be more costly in the long run.
If you engage reputable contractors and designers up front, partially compensate them (yes, I believe this will only partially compensate them) for their proposal, you have the potential for saving much more in the end. Contractors will jack up their price for two reasons – 1.) no competition, and 2.) assuming unknonw risk.
Unfortunately, the public only sees teh Leonard Lawson cases and their dealings with a roofer as examples of construction. However, many complex commercial and industrial projects are procured in a much different fashion. It is a complex relationship amongst sophisticated partners. It is not uncommon to shortlist these guys for a proposal, and provide them with a carrot for putting together their best price.
14 Skipper // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:23 am
Having worked around this general field for years, I understand the stipends in theory.
When you have a project that doesn’t fit into a mold, engineering professionals actually create the designs, schematics and plans that the general contractors are ultimately going to bid. Designing the bridge is an enormous undertaking that is literally going to require design professionals hundreds if not thousands of man hours to do including extensive site investigation, etc. and enormous risks if there designs prove to be faulty. The DOT wants and I think correctly to be able to have several qualified design teams come in and develop a few different proposals, but only award the final design proposal to one team. There’s lots a pluses to that. You get to see where the design teams proposals overlap, where they don’t and who ultimately has the better design.
And most importantly for me, I understand the DOT intends to keep the work product produced from all teams. That body of work will be valuable not only for this project, but for future modifications as well.
Now, I’m no fan of local and state government and I thoroughly expect there to be a degree of waste (probably a lot), but I do understand the basic point of this.
15 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:27 am
No one is questioning the basic point of this or whether or not it is common practice.
Read before commenting, folks.
16 David // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:42 am
I did. What did I miss?
17 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:45 am
Comment wasn’t just directed at you.
The fact that this isn’t happening in a perfect world. The bit about it being handled by literally the most corrupt agency in Frankfort?
Has nothing to do with unscrupulous contractors, Leonard Lawson and such and everything to do with the people at the agency.
18 David // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:47 am
No doubt, Jake. But how else do you go about procuring a $2 billion project?
19 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:50 am
You don’t.
Not with this bunch.
20 Fleur-de-gris // Feb 24, 2012 at 8:52 am
skipper and roger are coming from the same reality that i’ve experienced.
… and so, you’re “not buying the argument that a company has to be compensated just to bid on something” and we’re saying that they’re not. they’re being compensated to develop the scope of a hugely complicated project so that they can present bids based in construction industry reality. this is no give-away.
if you take skip the knee-jerk cynicism and provocation and look into this, you’ll see that $3m is less than 1% of this project, or less than 1/5 of the required contingency (set-aside for things that might come up) that most state agencies establish for large projects.
in this scenario the normal 5% contingency becomes unnecessary because you have a guaranteed design/build price, the reviewers get to pick the best of three designs, and they get to see the price when they’re picking.
yes, things can go wrong – just as they can in any bidding arrangement. if you’re digging for corruption, you’ll could find it no matter what the delivery method. but, as a process, this is in the interest of the state more than it is in the interest of the design/build teams.
[and my line of work has nothing to do with highway building. i *can* say i've been on the losing side of a public design/build project, however. let's just say that the community got an exceptionally great deal from us.]
21 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 9:05 am
For the millionth time, this is not a knee-jerk reaction. I know these motherfuckers at KYTC and write about them every day here and on Page One. Just the material in the mainstream media illustrates how incompetent they are.
You’re continuing to spin and ignore.
Your opinion would be a-okay in a perfect world.
To reiterate, these people are incompetent and corrupt. This isn’t about whether or not doling out cash is common practice. Not about whether or not the state is getting a good deal.
22 Fleur-de-gris // Feb 24, 2012 at 9:30 am
i get it now. the original presentation of the problem was that this was a give-away and that it didn’t sound fair. for anyone not familiar with this kind of process, that will seem like a big deal and will get some play.
but the actual issue isn’t that at all but, instead, that nothing is fair and no one will do anything right.
got it.
this could be a good and important discussion and VV could be a good venue for it. but only if we can believe that our public agencies can function and that we as a community can undertake a big effort in a responsible way.
i hope the community does have this debate somewhere. i don’t have high hopes because the whole bridges conversation has consisted of those of different positions talking past each other. [sigh.] so it goes.
23 jake // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:04 am
Are you mentally incompetent or willfully spinning?
No one in their right mind who has a clue what they’re talking about can concede that KYTC isn’t one of the most corrupt agencies in Frankfort.
Being a whiny ass titty baby because you think I’m unfair and stifling conversation falls on deaf ears. This isn’t a free speech zone.
Though, I find it interesting you only chime in on matters pertaining to engineering, architecture and folks you know.
Take it elsewhere.
24 No Kill Supporter // Feb 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm
In a perfect world, I understand paying for the designs and plans. However, I question the price in this situation. The state is paying $1.5 million for a month of work. Even if there are 30 members of the project team, that equates to $50,000 for each person for one month. That’s ridiculous!
25 Conservative Kentuckian // Feb 24, 2012 at 7:34 pm
$1 spent for a new downtown bridge is a waste. Build the east end bridge, route through trucks across either it or the Sherman Minton, and forget about a second downtown bridge. It isn’t needed.
26 gamble on Beshear // Feb 25, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Recall that Kentucky Transportation had contract biddings in 7/27/07 where no records were kept and the FBI investigated. Is it already known who will be the top three entries for the Louisville Bridges? Is this $3 million pretend “contest” to stick more money into the pockets of Beshear’s favorite contractors? In a fair competition, only the companies confident they can prepare a better design would risk the effort to have a chance at the contract, an admirable goal. Companies that don’t win should not be given state and federal funds as a reward. There is no one stopping corruption in Kentucky.
Gary Valentine, the manager of the Ohio River Bridges project, was promoted to the position on 9/2/08 by Secretary of the Transportation Cabinet, Joseph W. Prather; both are from Elizabethtown. Prather also authorized $4,693,344 for right-of-way acquisition for the Louisville Bridges project back in 3/3/2009. On June 11, 2009, Kentucky Transportation paid $2.22 million to 515 East Market Street, LLC for about an acre of land where less than half of it is needed for the right-of-way; DB 09417 p 0420. How is right-of-way being purchased for this project before it is designed?
27 stunoland // Feb 25, 2012 at 9:02 pm
The vast majority of public comments received supported prioritizing the east end bridge over a tolled 2 bridges project. A consistent majority of those attending bridges meetings were opposed to the 2 bridges project. The only scientific poll ever conducted on this issue indicated that >60% of Louisvillians favored the east end bridge over a tolled 2 bridges project (CN2 08/10). Cost effective local-access bridges could be built in the $100-$200 million range with small tolls if needed. Unfortunately the flawed tolling scheme means that the full ORBP cannot compete with additional cross-river connections so don’t expect to see additional bridges built within our lifetimes if the pathetic downtown ORBP is built. The entire local media has failed to do its job by not asking the tough questions about regressive priorities in this project and the absurd assumptions in the Wilbur-Smith tolling studies. Whenever the tolling contract is awarded expect a clause that forces the state to assume the risk of toll revenues not meeting projections. The project team as well as tolling contractors have to be fully aware of the wildly optimistic revenue projections and Wilbur-Smith’s (now CDSmith’s) terrible track record. The only alternative to the state assuming financial liability for future toll revenues is a clause that allows for the tolling of additional locations.
28 Fleur-de-gris // Feb 27, 2012 at 8:41 am
if kytc is as challenged an institution as some of these comments indicate, then i guess having them in charge of downtown while indiana is in charge of east end will be a good thing, right? maybe that’s the smartest way to get the east end bridge built first!
29 jake // Feb 27, 2012 at 8:43 am
It’s absolutely a great way to get the East End bridge built.
Leave a Comment