A technical grade is supposed to be an objective scoring of a bid based on specific technical factors in the proposal. Each RFP is different, so a score has no meaning outside of that particular RFP.
Points are given for having proposal sections that cover specific items requested. Obviously, there are always subjective undertones, but with a large enough review group, consensus can usually be achieved on the score to give for each section.
Not only was the high bid selected but the most construction days! Moreover, technical scores ranged from 97-55 with 97 going to the high bid and tie for longest construction duration....that helped win the bid, of course, but is extremely rare!!
Technical points are assigned for, in this case,
50% quality,
20% Aesthetics,
and the remaining 30% made up of public relations and stuff along that line. To call it technical is really a misnomer.
You can find this out at the MnDOT website.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
This sounds awful quick to me considering what took place, even considering the fact that it is a major artery - 4 weeks to design and bid for a structure this complex ??????????????? Seems super quick. Politically quick if you don't mind me saying so. I hope they know what they are doing. Is that an oxymoron or what - politicians knowing what they are doing?
As a resident of Minnesota I am not happy with the DOT's selection of the high bidder. The decision appears to be based on politics, not on the bidders ability to replace the bridge. I believe that the high bidder was selected because the DOT felt they had the resources to sell the project, while the other bid refelcted those companies ability to build the project.
Since the bridge has fell down this has become a political football. At first the DOT was trying to quickly replace the bridge to restore traffic flow on I-35. The next thing that happens is that the mayor is pushing for a light rail lane, other groups for a bike path while others want to make an architectural statement.
There has been a lot of speculation on what caused the bridge to collapse. The cause was politicians spend tax money on stadiums and their other pet projects instead of providing the funds needed to maintain bridges and roads.
Without going into the details of the technical rating system, it appears that the "selected" proposal was geared for the needs of the project and costs to accomplish this were built into the proposal. I do not know what the early completion bonuses will do to the total cost, but the bonuses can easily be justified easily in terms of cost to the state in terms of loss of time, commerce, traffic problems on other alternate routes, etc.
It is surprising how large the difference in technical scores were. Apparently, the selected firm has had more experience on this type of project and was able to present themselves well in the context of the proposal requirements. The firms not selected have had a good history in the classic "design, low bid and build according to the plans" method, but unfortunately may not have looked as close at the proposal requirements and opportunities.
It is also interesting that there was little mention of the selection method at the beginning of the process. - I guess it would have been bad news for a politician to make comments before an event (selection), when it is safer after the event.
I guess the public arena is geared for the "boy scout" method of design, low bidder and force compliance and has a difficult time using some of the tools private firms have when they hire contractors that are not the low builder. They can choose designer/builders can give better performace/product and more flexibility for the money within the scope of the project needs.
I agree with RARSWC. MnDOT was pressured by many interest groups but also was pressured to not let "low bid" and "fast completion" yield to 'cheap' and 'quick' as they may trump safety.
The technical score was subjective and we won't really know anything about it until or if the documents are released that give an idea as to what really happened.
And lastly from a bird's eye view, allocation of tax payer money for corporate welfare or other pet projects always trumps infrastructure.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
The Figg Group has some great salesmen (and women), and the company has put out some great products. Their cable stayed concrete box girder bridges seem to appeal to the public. Myself, I'm not a big fan of the look. I guess I'm a steel guy.
On a side note, the bridge near here they recently designed has run way over budget and way way over schedule. I hope the people of MN will have better luck!
The Figg Group has brought structural engineering into the 21st century. Pretensioned, keyed, trapezoidal sections and cable stays are the look of the future.
I reckon we'd have just about the same thread if the low bid got the project, tho' of course with the opposite inclination (penny pinching instead of penny wasting).
Evaluating proposals is subjective ... plans and budgets are one thing, proven performance to plan is another. If you black out the company names on the bids you'd probably go with the lowest bid; 'cause you've lost that link to performance. I guess if you have several reviewers, and maybe (like ice skating) throw out the highest and lowest scores you get a less personally biased subjective view (maybe you get the subjective view of the group of reviewers?) but probably none of the reviewers would recognise the outcome ?
Steel was the material of choice in many recent "modern" bridges. If a steel design is not included in consideration, then Figg is not using the best material for shop fabrication and field erection.
plasgears - while Figg certainly has some nice designs (Natchez Trace Parkway) they alone have not brought structural engineering anywhere. Most of the concepts that Figg perpetuates today came from Mueller and Europe in the 1960s to the present. Most of pre-stressing wouldn't be where it is today without the French engineers and the Germans who may it common place in Europe.
As to concrete being the material of choice, there is, of course, subjectivity to what an aesthetic bridge is. But generally speaking steel is very competitive and also attractive in 100' to 600' spans as beam bridges. Precast concrete beams (segmental or otherwise) isn't that competitive until you have many, many spans and even then it is mainly limited to 400' spans. Steel arches and single span trusses are the norm from 600' to 1000' and then cable stay bridges become more cost efficient at 1000' and above, but both concrete and steel are again choices.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
Qshake - I think we've seen numerous times, though, when concrete girders in bridges can be competitive, and even better, than steel when used as continous girders using splice techniques at the piers.
In our state, some steel bridge designs have been sometimes replaced with this type of bridge based on cost savings, long term maintenance, etc.
JAE - I definitely agree that a typical bridge on a DOT inventory is best as prestressed concrete i-girders.
But those beam bridges go to about 130-150' and then it's steel. Larger concrete beam bridges (the segmental type) can reach about 400' using precast concrete and 500'-700' when using cast-in-place concrete.
CIP segmental bridges can take a long time to construct and that is why I think the 3 of 4 contractors on i35 went with steel. That main span was originally 450' or so.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
