Agenda 09/23/2008 Item #10IItem # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 1 of 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of $16,512,979.12
to Astaldi Construction Corporation and reserve $2,435,000.00 on the purchase
order for funding allowances, for Bid No. 08 -5106 — "Santa Barbara Boulevard
Extension (Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard ", Project No. 60091,
Fiscal Impact $18,947,979.12
OBJECTIVE: To award a construction contract for Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
to Astaldi Construction Corporation, in accordance with Bid No. 08 -5106.
CONSIDERATIONS: The project was submitted for advertisement of bids on July 15,
2008. A non - mandatory pre -bid meeting was held on July 31, 2008. The bid was split
into two phases. Phase I is the construction of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension from
Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard. Phase II is the construction of the
LASIP Santa Barbara Canal. Bids were opened on August 18, 2008 with Astaldi
Construction Corporation submitting the low bid in accordance with the procedures as
established. On September 9, 2008, under Item IOC, The Board of County
Commissioners affirmed that Astaldi Construction Corporation meets the definition of
"local" as set out in the Local Preference Policy. Eight companies submitted bids. The
bids that were accepted includes:
Astaldi Construction Corporation ($18,947,979.12)
Mitchell & Stark ($19,896,854.92),
Palm Beach Grading ($19,995,500.85),
APAC ($21,423,519.10),
Better Roads ($21,489,071.12),
Quality Enterprises ($22,782,749.67),
Phillips & Jordan ($23,279,743.01), and
Posen ($25,557,985.30) .
The Engineer's estimate for Phase I was $29,355,189.76, and the Engineer's estimate for
Phase 11 was $1,858,713.40, for a total of $31,213,903.16. The low bid was 39% under
the engineer's estimate. All of the bids include the $2,435,000.00 funding for
Allowances.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $17,928,213.52 are available in Gas Taxes
and Impact Fees. Funds in the amount of $1,019,765.60 will be available October 1, 2008
from the Stormwater LASIP project Ad Valorem for a total fiscal impact of
$18,947,979.12 for the project. Source of funds are gas taxes, impact fees and
Stormwater Ad Valorem.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The construction of Santa Barbara Boulevard
Extension is identified on the AUIR (CIE No. 32) and is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 2 of 12
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved by the County
Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action. —SRT.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No. 08-
5106 in the amount of $18,947,979.12 to Astaldi Construction Corporation for the
construction of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension (Rattlesnake Hammock Road to
Davis Boulevard), and the LASIP Santa Barbara Canal; and authorize the Board
Chairman to execute a standard, County Attorney approved contract with Astaldi
Construction Corporation and approve any necessary budget amendments.
Prepared By: Kevin H. Dugan, Project Manager, TECM
Attachments: (1) Bid Analysis; (2) Tab Sheet Revised
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 3 of 12
Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of $16,512,979.12 to Astaldi
Construction Corporation and reserve $2,435,000.00 on the purchase order for funding allowances,
for Bid No. 08 -5106 & #8211; & #8220;Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension (Rattlesnake Hammock
Road to Davis Boulevard& #8221;, Project No. 60091, Fiscal Impact $18,947,979.12. (Norman Feder,
Transportation Services Administrator)
Prepared By:
Department
Date
Trans. Eng. And
Const. Mgmt.
9/5/2008 9:55:42 AM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Trans. Eng. And
Const. Mgmt.
Approved
9/12/2008 2:41 PM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Purchasing
Approved
9/12/2008 3:44 PM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
County Attorney
Approved
9/12/2008 4:48 PM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Transportation
Approved
9/15/2008 6:57 AM
Approved By:
Department
Approval
Date
Office of
Management
Approved
9/15,12008 11:10 AM
and Budget
Approved By:
Department Approval
County Approved
Manager's Office
ATTACHMENTS:
Name: Description:
0 ExecSum onstructonContract
(2Loc Executive Summary
0 08-510.6 T-abi-S-h_eet Revised Tab Sheet
Final.xls
0 Bid AnalysisTodf Bid Analysis
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 4 of 12
Date
9/15/2008 11:41 AM
Type:
Executive Summary
Backup Material
Backup Material
mom..
`Daa
� o
m m u
0
z
P
O
m
O
O
O d
a d
a=
ap
m -
W
m
A
m
N
ym
a'o
N N
y �
A °ma
E
O A A
u`oo
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 5 of 12
r
N
0
n
m
a Q
m
r4i
m
n
n
a
n
O r
m
N
d
M
r
W
N
N
N
N
p
N
N
d
N
n
d
m
W Z
tlNi
^
b
N
m
u
N
a
Z>
Y
2 Y}
Y
>)
y
N
n�
d
m
N
w
N
N
NN
Z
N
O
N
O
M1
y
m
W U
m
en-
mA_
M
n
OW
1n
T
M1 N_
p
M
N
N
1A
U
p
p
p
z
d
m
N
r
O
m
o
N
m O
r
m
mm
J Y U
N
N
li
r
O
N
Q
y
N
M
V
N y_
y
N
O
m
r
A
U
w
w
w
w
ww
m
N
m
m
m
O
n
d
O
O
Z
p
d Q
0
m
n
M
A
M
N
n
m
Z Y>
2)
Y
Y)
)
Y
YO
r
m
A
N
N
O
m
b
O U
N
C
O
u)
M
0
n
d
N
d
m
y
)
Y 2))
Y)
Y
~ 1-
O
N
N
0
r
m
w
N
wN
N
m
N
M
O
m
0
ry
N
m
aN
m
m
W
N
A
N
y
N
b
m
Y)
Y Z
Z T))
)
mF
N
N
N
N
pw
N
W
S
n
O
m
O
n
O
W
M
N
d
O
M
N
m
Oi
°'
y
r
p
O
M
d
U
O
r
Q
N
N
N
w
w
w
w
w
E
m
m
�
EO
Y
m
E
d
Q
Q
o>
Q
o
o
on
o
00
i
mm
nE
�`
y�
E
Ew
Ec�
E"i
EO
��
o.
m
U°
c
y _
Q
Q=
Q 2
Q Q
Q�
a
m
A a
E
N
vii
Q
0
A
O
J
P :
R Z
S2
N Z
Q
N
2
DP
p
N
F
m
p
D
V
s
O
O
O
O
L
a
a
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 5 of 12
yam
[i5
$@8�
8
2
Sa8
8
'2
58
3
8
8888
8888885
858&
w.
6m8
d
85
Y
-y
A $4�S�maSm
am
m8g5R
d%
AASa
F
-
-
»»
»
w8
88
S8
5
e8858
°,5
88
88
8
8
%8
8
88
828
8
88
8,8
888
3S
&8,88
88
_
»_w
»w
»--
- --__»
w„
»wawa----
58
8 88 5
» «
°8688888888888
»-------
----
--------------------
8888888866886888
888
---------
88888
888
__
86
»
S8
8888888888888858
uG
8
mmm835
m$mm
68
m2
3m m RRm
&$
M'RBdpm
88
$XdC
mAmn�.EmT
A
»_
82'6
m5
Cm
n
^.
„ «_�
^mRRoBpo
m°
88
8885'39888
88
8
88888888
«5888
828
88888868888888888
.98868869$83$6658888$
°i&°
n«
SAS
88 8 r888-88
smssms;
888888
8888888888%8
8
8.,
°8
88
58
8888888888.888888
mmmmm��mmam8a
�
e g�6�8
«BZ
m.ms
A88mBSmmm
�mm
°a
d8
daE�sS��m
3A=
�m
:�
V�
Y„
.�m'..
E
Rm
8
8888
588
888
A8R.
588 882688888888888
888588886888888
8
888
°52888
88
`e83^
_
8
°88888285
@8
8 5 8888
88888888
8
8888884
A86
98
5
8 888
„8%3$8
BE
4.8
°%888%
.mBmmY'..SSem
° °.63.3
3 3:..m
S
R
RmSRp
8m8RR
§'m
3
mA
«
°3
5 $Amm
�_
396
^m
'+
o2R5^
°•:=
- °R2
^�
°A'
« °R
^33
^e:
^
"_m"
_
°4
^'
°•:34.ASXRC
°Y
„'_
A ^_3°
»888888888888886
cw
8882828888858
8
n «w»
888888
e
8
88'.^88926
88
888
5
3w
omgmg8-
-
°nm
-
R8'6A
4
O
m4
MEER
Wt
88
E
58 8
$
5
$a
83
s
p8
a
1
�
SA
85
R
3 a8A°
a -�
--
-
_
p
ww
w
w w
w w
°8$$858
w w
w -
- -
°58,58mSR
w w___
^_..^
„......
8E :':
» »
rR
»_
3A
» »ww
^^ „823
»_--
p.
w
8,399
_w
w
w w
$.393
w w
w w
w w
a3
w w-
X8.9.8
--
-.
»»
..__
p 93
» »---
9CmR8p
»_
88
»
�S
^'
+
$
E:8a8E&58
°923
%a3:8
8 89:,m8
3
p
'% "9
«e
ARR�m
�A
«%
=8888
88
m$
AmEm
m
�5
2223x5
am3
�a$
5
w
�
8
cy
&A
$
_
„88=
5=
«
^3_n6�:•Ao
° °R
„��
^t
°_
_
_
^dRe
«A:;n
eR
^%°
-
�-
F
8g
e
g
6
3
3Y
a
8
^
8
8E
88
w
a
8
S
S
888
S
$
$
^888
88
88888
A8
8
8
888
%
98$3
fr
£
8 8589
88
m
8,8
e8
88
s
°S$R
°..ms
mA.
^_e
RadS R5s
R
gag58a
s�$
B
-
�
s
Aae
Sm
ea
9
8
889
8..88
X
- 88888888
8
8
8
»
11T.
»
»„w - --w
w
w w
w w
w »
»»
-
- -
--
--o
www
»____w»
..w»
°
�w
�Ga
4
•
-
-”
aa¢¢p
o�3o
s
Piz
�ay'
Ss°t
3�u
m8Rm
�
aSom
Apo
_
...
_o='F"3555535
`"B�
ANtai
wo3
33g
34
°5
d,n
y,qa
rt6_
¢
Yd
8449
V
'A-
Y
gib'
9�yo
.'i
.�04
�4
b
3
'
�A�yy
��
p�
H
0
B�
o�
S
�s11
ao`o
8888888
8
8888.8
888
88888••8888$888.
888888
?y
p..6
�.6ca8
-M
&A-
RBk
a
$aBaasa�
6:EA;rvE
»„
»
»88888$888
»88
88888
88888
868888
8�
888
8
8988808
888688888888888CC8
%8888888888
•98868888
R886888$88888R8888R
'�oa
6�R888,888888888888
IT
888888
•88
..
8
88888888888
8Sg88886
858888868888688S888808888
88
IN=
8
°R�
%
-
-
---
..---
- »
» »
«»
..
» »
» »»
»
» » »
« «
»----
« »
» »
» »
» »
»
» »..
»
« »»
»»
88858Y88
°
3g'E
p8
64888
J'B.a
p8888•8
d.
.�
.�SSESR$CtlF
%p8p
p8p6p8p
g8g8g
p8p
y8y p8pB8B8p8p
S`43b3ST�
pp6 p8p
q8q q8q8
88888868886888988
R.eS
6, 4m
b.i$
8R
EMU
'8
rv88
F.mRCE.
Z8Z
p8p8
6a
g8 ¢8
p8.p8
p8
99
-S'
S.Nb
bb,
Y
88888
888888888$$8«
»88888888888»
«88888688
»»
6868868888888_
8
88
»8
«888888$8
«B8.
^AR
8
9��.8
A8k�
-9
,�S�Q88
Ex�m�RS�as
6
88888888888886$
s-
=
$
@
88888888888
sB "k£,%
&8988
•86
Sea
88888•
?.'
5
n6RR9R88
meFp
9a
^6.,988_
��?
PRE
�4
0£,888
9-
!;��
l
�m.8�88868888
888888
8�8SSS,$B
RB
Sm�86ae
8
9mn$�.S
_B,Ar
AR
Ra n,RR�
f
R
A
9
'
R9
`
F.s s$a a, .,
10
sa,
°6
,2668806
R
CR��
6es
s
^R
^g6,
pRa.,s
RR'�.L
a
a8R
s.�6
E
<"
_RA6
'
89
%88
R.
886
CF
^R.
,8F
R
8
eaE
8 .rEB
5
Y
°8
RA
e
iv.
B
X
da$82
E86A�y$688
a
888.6888.$
S "
d6808�Rr
p..8
8F�8
$-,a.6R
$�8�b
Se^
RAE
N .R
°B�e8883
8�78�6d
�„
..88
8986"
^.
.a 68m`"
%..„
.R
G
»
C =6C-
areF
a
888
83
�6
„alp
6
888Y
Si
.~ 888.
888.»
¢3 N9 88RGa
6a
SASY
E88
3
886
A«
b
8
R
IN
RR0`68
�9�R
R
88888888888.-
B8
„C888888,RS88
8
888888,
X86888886.
6,8
RS865
8a
8
$6$$88888,85
6 °n9���R��R.EBQ
�.5
��
590,
N
6ml
$IRF
".RR
R
RR�oAd
66
p
R
6�
^R
�.�F'
°9.2.88
c %c'•
_
98
5
888888888888„
98
888.888888
86806
»»
8888888
886
6
»
,668
6
„8888
g «88«
�«
$.
.e
„6
m
° „
'IT
-
-
me °c'�c.1
aaA
^ecmR6
"sm
^"
”
°`a
pa
3
2
ao
s�8
"3
mWWe
k�
sw�gqaNy
"qqmm
'a!
#k
`- "y�`y
��
ok
R'x
-'yu
£££Z£vvvvY�£^££££
qnp
££3�£i3S2££
££3FZF£
ya'a4o'��yyja.$`s
§gYtltl588,4
nm•q
AJ.fa
AR�'6nd
^,Ad
33333333333
33333�iu�i�
^9n^�'�'n
9i
Rnae
3
^ae
G
E_
h�
x
3
�e
F =a
-5
KE°
8 5888888
8
8
%$
S
8S '" 888
R AAS
^.b
8
888n,
_88
888__
8
S
w
8 °S
ry
�a
» ^.
S :S�
$
a
° _
Rai
"SS88S68
»° "
«
«SEE
"
W
8
888888
SS S i
S
89885
S %5885885
S
R
8
8A
3
a $5SRa
x8s
Ss�me
R°
_
3 €tl
�..
axxA
»R-
"8
ps
AAA
a
88888888
888888
8 A
8 8'888
- a ? gig
8�
88,88888888$$8888888888888
R
�°%��E
HOME.
E.
s.
88
$8885
�ASRE
a.o
dBS�s
��ad6
4
3,
y�
A
Y
x -
»Raya_�_su
"n
^3�a5
R3
R6.
»8 «8888888
"8 "8t
«R »R »S "8 "888
»
$
`�
888
%8$
%5686888688888888688888888
8
888
%"
'X
a "sa
s8A
R.
c
:g
-
" SC���M
%
R "se
s"
�8
.g'-
.e
8.6885868
88$888
$ 888
8 8A 8 888
%
r
A$
88888888868888888858888
S��Sry��
��
R8$R
�
8_ry
8888
8858.
rySRU
E
688892
�. ���
C
a'
g�
s.
"dA
--
"
R fez
m act
»x
» -sASS
sA
asg
«xg�
-
«8 «8888,888
»8 »8n
"5 "8 «q «8 «886
»
d
888888,
�
888888888888888886888
%S8S%S88
°888
AAA
6
S
Sd$S
8
b 55%56
S
888
888888888
$SR66888A88
88
888
^
E
» »
»-
« " »
»« » « " " « « "
"$»
888888,
8,888888.meR
8,5,5
%8,A
%5888,8
8S8
^«
-
=s
t
t
s
s
101
6 55
5
$$
S
9
ES 6 a,
$ Ss
5
s
%R
Y6s
86e
"s
=. gaps
e e
^ a
"a 23
Y
P
^
_ �
k
zs26
"
» » « ««
«.. » « »., » »» »
»
Eqg
R S
%:G
^_
3
83x
-
^SRJS
%3
R
ry
R
sz^
«Ba
s
_:s
«e-s
AAA
R
s«
..
I _
R6
5d
5
6
6
Rl
,8.88888
%8
5488888
8 S88
5 5 888
Sp
8
888$88688865888888
,,,58885
8
SRS
�x
5
_.
«8558
S
88.88
8
8 R % $ 888
8
888
85
RS
%_'
_88
R
-Itt
'
94
o
2
Yiii
2
-
s
CBS
���
88w
w
'
aLLg
°.
T
U�S323
-
yw
uY
9wg
oJ5gaE
uu`°'a
rc
g'N
.�o'_
dm
HGGzOZ
e:yCa��mu.L
Jai
°Sry
4
mAOSm
RSPPS'�RRRa¢88o
■d��r
irWA;�GNOLI
HHURCuARBER &
■■■■■■:�
:■°■'■ :0RUNDAGE, INC:
Vafasie lrno, ,r+mn.& Land surveyors:`:
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 9 of 12
7400 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34108 Phone: (239) 597-3111 Fax: (239) 566 -2203
9990 Coconut Road, Suite 103, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 948 -8663 Fax: (239) 498 -2726
MEMORANDUM
Date:
September 5, 2008
Project:
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
$21,567,390.63
ABB PN 05 -0081 County PN 60091
Subject:
Cost Estimate Methodology - Bid Difference Analysis
From:
Ted Tryka, P.E.
To:
Gary Putaansuu, P.E.
Engineer's Estimate Average Bid Apparent Low Bid
Phase $29,355,189.76 $20,246,455.49 $17,928,213.51
Phase II $1,858,713.40
$1,320,935.14
$1,019,765.60
Total $31,213,903.16
$21,567,390.63
$18,947,979.11
Difference
$9,646,512.53
$12,265,924.05
The main resource for the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost is the use of past bids for similar
roadway projects. Preferably Collier County projects are used since many of the costs are
affected by the distance a Contractor would have to travel to ajob site, particularly in the
southern part of Collier County. Unfortunately, the number of recent Collier County bids has
decreased. The most current Collier County project bid was for Collier Boulevard from U.S. 41
to Davis Blvd. which was bid on June 18th, 2007. In an effort to improve the accuracy of
estimates, Collier County and Lee County Transportation have been sharing estimates for
roadway projects. The bids for Summerlin Road from Cypress Lake Drive to Boy Scout Drive
were also used in preparing the estimate. This particular project was chosen because it was
similar in scope, ABB had prepared the plans so we were very familiar with any differences
between the projects, and the bid date of the project was within the past year (The bids were
received on 10- 16 -07).
The specific methodology utilized was to average the unit prices of the four Collier Boulevard
bids, average the unit prices of the six Summerlin Road bids and then take an average of the two
projects' unit prices to arrive at the final unit cost. This method of averages was used for all
items with a specific quantity. A percentage was applied to the total of all other costs on the
project to estimate the Lump Sum Items. The average percentages used for the Lump Sum Items
were drawn from many past roadway projects to establish a broad base. For this project the
high - dollar Lump Sum Items were Mobilization at 6.4 %, Survey & Layout at 2.67% and
Maintenance of Traffic at 2.67 %. Typically, the Mobilization and MOT percentages would be
closer to 10 %, but were reduced due to the fact that three - quarters of the project is free of an
existing roadway.
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 10 of 12
A percentage method usually works well with Lump Sum Items because these items tend to vary
quite a bit from contractor to contractor. For example, the Mobilization price for the low- bidder
was $1,553,869.72 while the second low- bidder was only $401,000.00 which is a difference of
over $1.1 million. Not only is there a large difference in price, the low- bidder is already working
on the adjacent project which would have led one to conclude that they should have one of the
lower Mobilization bids.
Looking at the overall bid numbers, the average of the eight bids is approximately 30% below
the Engineer's Estimate totaling over $9.6 million in difference. With the overall average bid
30% lower than the estimate one would assume that the bids for each individual category would
be approximately 30% lower. However, this is not the case. The Roadway Category is 33%
lower, the Utilities Category is 17% lower, the Signing & Markings Category is 3% higher, the
Signalization Category is 25% higher, the Lighting Category is 12% lower and the Canal
Category is 29% lower. Of the 200 biddable items (8 were fixed) a total of 145 or 73% of the
items had at least one bid that was higher than the Engineer's Estimate. It is therefore apparent
that individual bid items fluctuated from contractor to contractor.
When the individual categories are broken down further into separate items there were three
main areas where the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost was significantly higher than the
average bids received. Those categories were lump sum items, earthwork items and RCP/PVC
pipe. Within the lump sum items there were three items that accounted for the majority of the
difference: Mobilization, Survey Layout and Maintenance of Traffic. Since percentages of the
total construction cost were used to estimate these items, it stands to reason that the estimate for
these lump sum items would be higher as well since the overall Engineer's Estimate was high. In
addition to the differences in overall construction costs, the percentages estimated for each item
were high compared to the bids received even though the Mobilization and MOT percentages
were reduced from traditional bidding averages of between 7.5% and 10 %. The estimate of
Mobilization was 6.40 %, the average bid was 3.55% and the low- bidder had a surprisingly high
9.11 %. The estimate for Survey and Layout was 2.67% while the average bids were very low at
0.70 %. This number is extremely low for this type of work. ABB recently completed
construction layout for the $13.7 million Old 41 Road project in Bonita Springs for $215,000 or
about 1.6 %. However, this was only a 4 -lane road without a canal or any utility stake -out so it
was expected that the stake -out costs would be higher than the Old 41 Road project. The
Maintenance of Traffic item was estimated at 2.67% and the bids came in at 1.24 %. Clearing &
Grubbing is a lump sum item that is not based upon a percentage of construction costs but is
based upon the total acreage of the project. The estimate was placed at $1.7 million. This
project consisted of 75.6 Acres and was much larger than most typical County road projects due
to the addition of the LASIP Canal project and work to be done along Rattlesnake Hammock
Road, St Andrews Blvd., Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Blvd. In comparison, a similar
length project, Rattlesnake Hammock Road Six - Laning, was only 44.8 Acres in area. The
clearing & grubbing area of the Santa Barbara Blvd. Extension is 69% greater in area than the
Rattlesnake Hammock Road project. Using the average bid from Rattlesnake Hammock Road of
$860,000 and interpolating it to the larger acreage the new number would he approximately
$1.45 million. This estimate was further increased to account for additional grading work to be
completed between the roadway and canal, selective clearing & grubbing behind the sound wall
at Falling Waters, and three years worth of inflation. Note the low bid on Rattlesnake Hammock
Road was $1.995 million for this item.
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 11 of 12
Embankment in the earthwork category contained the biggest discrepancy between the estimate
and the bids. The estimate was $17.00 per CY; the average bid was $3.26 per CY and the
winning bid was only $1.81 per CY. The total difference between the estimate and winning bid
was $3.29 million. Although $17.00 per CY is a typical number that has been seen or exceeded
on other projects, more consideration could have been given to the fact that the job is more or
less an earthwork balance (Provided Sub -Soil Excavation doesn't run over the anticipated
amount, or excessive rock is found that cannot be utilized as fill). Excavation also accounted for
more than a half - million dollar difference between the estimate and winning bid. However, 5 of
the 8 bids were higher than the Engineer's Estimate, so the winning contractor targeted this item
as a low -bid item. Type B Stabilization was similar in this regard with the low bid being
approximately $500,000 lower than the estimate and low bid being approximately 1/3 the cost of
the average bid. Limerock was another item the low bidder targeted to reduce his bid. The
estimate was $18.00 per CY, the average bid was $10.22 per CY and the low bid was $2.34 per
CY - more than 4 times less than the average bid. This brought the low -bid in at over $900,000
less than the average and approximately $1.8 million less than the estimate.
Pre -cast concrete box culverts and RCP represented another area where bid prices were well
below the estimate. Rather than looking at each individual culvert size, this category was
analyzed as a whole. The estimate for all the work was $2,956,705, the average bid was
$2,125,740.29 and the low bid was $1,600,953.30. The estimate was 28% higher than the
average bid and 46% higher than the low bid. The difference between the average bid and the
low bid was approximately 25 %. This indicates another area the low bidder had targeted to
obtain the job. Unfortunately there was not a large quantity of storm drain pipe on the most
recent Collier Boulevard job and there were no sizes over 24 ". The Summerlin Road bid was
therefore used as a basis to estimate the prices for a majority of the pipe. There was, however,
over 1,000 LF of 18" RCP on the Collier Boulevard bid in which the average bid price was
$70.45. The Collier Blvd. bid for 18" RCP was 15% higher than the price bid on Summerlin
Road. This 15% increase was applied to all of the average pipe prices on Summerlin to arrive at
the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension estimate. It is interesting to note that the low bidder on
this project participated in the bid for Collier Boulevard. His price for 18" RCP on Collier
Boulevard was $90.82 per LF as compared to $30.34 per LF on this project, a two - thirds
reduction in price in just over a year's time.
The final area where the estimate was much higher then the bid prices was in the large diameter
PVC pipe used for the 20" RCWM and the 30" FM. Estimating these prices is always
challenging because there is very little data to draw upon since these large diameter utility pipes
are relatively rare on roadway projects. On the recent Collier Boulevard project there was none
at all. On the Summerlin Road project the largest diameter pipe utilized was 12 ". Referring to
the Collier Boulevard (Golden Gate to Immokalee) project, the price for 24" PVC was an
average of $258 per LF. That price seemed very high so another project, Rattlesnake Hammock
Road, which was bid three years ago, was used as a basis for estimating the cost. The average
price for 20" PVC was $150 per LF and the average price for 24" PVC was $160 per LF. The
timing of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road project pre -dated the major spike in construction costs
so it seemed appropriate to use those costs for estimating PVC prices on this project. As it
turned out, the estimate was about 22% high on the 30" PVC and about 41% high on the 20"
PVC when compared to the average bid. This accounted for approximately $291.000 in
difference from the estimate to average bid and approximately $433,000 between the estimate
and low bid.
Item # 101
September 23, 2008
Page 12 of 12
There was one group of items that even conservative estimating could not keep pace with and
that was asphalt. Rising fuel and bituminous costs have continued to drive asphalt prices up.
2.5" SuperPave Asphalt was estimated at $10 per SY, with the low bid at $11.37 per SY and the
average bid at $12.44 per SY. This resulted in increases of 13.7% and 24.4% respectively over
the estimate. Even greater increases were seen with the 1" Friction Course. The estimate was
$7.50 per SY, the low bid was $9.84 per SY and the average bid was $10.15 per SY. The
resultant increases were 31.2% higher from the estimate to low bid and 35.3% higher from the
estimate to the average bid.
The methodology behind the Engineer's Estimate and the major differences between the estimate
and the bids has been explained in detail above. But that still does not account for why the
estimating process was not as accurate as it has proven on past projects. The most likely reason
for the low bid prices is the current state of the economy. The slumping housing market has
created a strain on the economy as a whole and in particular on the construction industry. Less
private work has driven more contractors into the public works sector. This was evidenced by a
total of 8 bids submitted for the project when a typical County road project would receive three
to four bids. In fact as recently as two years ago the Collier Boulevard project from Golden Gate
Boulevard to Immokalee Road only received one bid. Construction prices are naturally going to
be reduced with more contractors competing for the work. In addition to less private sector
work, the housing market downturn has meant less taxes and impact fees collected by the
County. This has led to budgetary constraints and less road projects being let for construction.
This is evidenced by the County acting as the CET for this project. Instead of spreading their
construction management staff over several projects the County has chosen to concentrate their
staff on this single project. With fewer projects on the horizon, each bid becomes more
important to the contractors and thus more competitive prices are garnered. On top of the
changing economy the project was also more attractive to prospective bidders due to the atypical
characteristics of the project. This is essentially a new road project through an undeveloped
corridor. A majority of the road can be built without affecting the existing traffic along Polly
Avenue resulting in a reduced amount of maintenance of traffic. There are also less existing
utilities present than would be found on a typical roadway corridor. With the addition of the
LASIP Canal the project becomes an earthwork balance project so all the materials are available
on -site, and with a wide right -of -way and an undeveloped corridor there is plenty of room to
work, de -water and store materials.
Although all of these factors were known ahead of the bid it is very difficult for an engineer to
quantify the actual dollar amount impact on the project. Generally speaking an Engineer's
Estimate is going to err on the side of caution so that the owner has enough money in his budget
to cover the cost of construction. A typical estimate is geared towards being 10% higher than the
average of the bids. Even with all the factors pointing towards a lower bid number it was
difficult to come off of the hard bid numbers seen on previous projects. This will be a valuable
learning tool to apply to future projects that encounter similar market conditions.