Value Engineering

25th Avenue & Union Pacific Grade Separation #6

Value Engineering Study Final Report May 13, 2013 PREPARED FOR IDOT Bureau of Local Roads District One 201 West Center Court Schaumburg, IL 60196

PREPARED BY HNTB Corporation One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Value Engineering Recommendations ............................................................................................. 1 Design Suggestions ........................................................................................................................ 21 Implementation ............................................................................................................................. 21 VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY REPORT......................................................................................................... 22 Information Phase....................................................................................................................................... 23 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 23 Value Engineering Study Team Members...................................................................................... 25 Dates and Locations of Value Engineering Study .......................................................................... 26 Reference Materials ....................................................................................................................... 26 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 27 Constraints to the VE Study ........................................................................................................... 28 Identification of Potential Risks to Scope, Schedule or Costs........................................................ 28 Workshop Expectations ................................................................................................................. 31 Function Analysis Phase .............................................................................................................................. 31 Users, Owners and Stakeholders ................................................................................................... 31 Needs and Desires ......................................................................................................................... 32 Cost Estimate and Cost Analysis .................................................................................................... 33 Function Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 35 Creative Idea Phase..................................................................................................................................... 39 Evaluation Phase ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Development Phase .................................................................................................................................... 45 Ideas for Development .................................................................................................................. 45 Presentation of Recommendations Agenda .................................................................................. 45 Minutes of Meeting ....................................................................................................................... 46 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 52 JOB PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 53 WORKSHOP AGENDA ..................................................................................................................... 5ϲ VALUE ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... ϲϭ IDEA DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS...............................................................................................ϳϭ DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................................................ϭϰϬ ATTENDANCE SHEETS ...................................................................................................................ϭϰϴ WORKSHOP PHOTOS ....................................................................................................................ϭϱϯ

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program and the Illinois Department of Transportation requested HNTB to conduct a value engineering study of the 25th Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation #6 in Bellwood and Melrose Park, Illinois. The value engineering study was conducted according to FHWA and Illinois DOT regulations and consisted of the following phases:

• • • • • • • •

Pre-workshop planning Information gathering and review Function analysis, including risk identification and cost analysis Creative brainstorming Evaluation of ideas Development of ideas Presentation of recommendations Resolution or implementation decision of each recommendation

The value engineering study occurred early in project development when plans were approximately 30% complete and the design team is able to implement recommendations as part of the continuing concept evaluation process. As is usually the case for VE studies at this stage, the recommendations focused on rail and vehicular traffic operations, design concepts, utility coordination, right of way acquisition, the design and construction schedule, and the entire project delivery process.

Value Engineering Recommendations Value engineering seeks to improve performance (P) and reduce costs (C). Some examples and a graphic illustration of positive value engineering analyses are:

Increased Performance

Same Performance

Increased Performance

Decreased Cost

Decreased Cost

Small Increased Cost

The VE team identified 17 ideas, 6 design suggestions and 16 recommendations for implementation with a potential cost savings of approximately $1,713,000 based on evaluating performance and cost. These

Page 2

ideas originated from analyzing the construction costs, identifying potential areas of risk regarding the schedule (performance) and the construction cost; and discussing the expectations of the VE study. The Summary of Recommendations is noted in the table below. In some cases, construction time was reduced; or situations that could increase construction time were avoided. The Appendix includes more detailed worksheets and calculations for each of the recommendations.

Idea

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Change in Cost Change in (Savings) Performance Increase

Review access considerations for Cozzi O’Brien and Combined Metals to assess need for NEPA reevaluation.

ENV 1

Cost Avoidance

Validate regulatory compliance

VE Team Recommended Action Design team coordinate with IDOT and FHWA to confirm NEEPA reevaluation requirements based on changes to the Phase I design; especially utility relocation and Combined Metals access road on the newly acquired Cozzi property.

Advantages: • Confirm compliance with Federal environmental review procedures Disadvantages: •

None

ROW 1

Develop land acquisition schedule.

Delay and Cost Avoidance

Improve project delivery process

Advantages: • Positively affects the bidding and construction schedule • Identify critical path activities Disadvantages: •

None

Design team update the Phase II project schedule to reflect the activities and durations required using the IDOT land acquisition policies and procedures.

Page 3

Idea

ROW 2


Develop plan to accelerate land acquisition process.


VE Team Recommended Action

Improve project delivery time

Local agency use precertified staff/firms that have successfully navigated the IDOT land acquisition process on previous projects. Additionally, the local agency should seek "quick take" authority from the Illinois legislature and Illinois Municipal League.


Design team review, update, and refine the attached schedule that includes the review and submittal process and durations.

Advantages: • Condense schedule for project implementation Disadvantages: •

None

SCHED 1

Develop submittal/review schedule for team.


Advantages: • Establishes common commitments and sets expectations • Validates deliverable schedule and submission/review dates Disadvantages: •

None

Page 4

Idea

SCHED 2


Develop more detailed schedule working backwards from construction start date (NTP).

Advantages: • Establishes common goals Disadvantages: •

None



VE Team Recommended Action A new schedule has been developed by the VE team that takes into account the actual processes and procedure timeframes of the various major tasks. The intent is to provide the design team a realistic schedule as well as to outline the critical path so that resources can be applied to those activities that have a major impact on getting the project to construction.

Page 5

Idea

SCHED 3


Develop team approach to reduce number of plan review iterations and duration.


VE Team Recommended Action


Convene design review workshops of the designers' staff to review the submittal package before transmitting to IDOT and review agencies. Convene a multi-disciplinary IDOT design review team to review and comment on plans in one location at the same time in order to expedite the review process.

Optimize and validate design

Based on the VE team initial review and the discrepancies referenced in the report above, the VE team recommended further evaluation of the drainage design and this has resulted in the evaluation of three specific drainage design items, listed in STM 2, STM3 and STM 4.

Advantages: • Establishes common goals • Reinforce team approach to project delivery Disadvantages: • May not follow IDOT standard processing time

STM 1

Review stormwater drainage and detention design.

Cost Avoidance

Advantages: • Could reduce cost • Could reduce detention requirements and resulting impacts • Validate existing design Disadvantages: • None

Page 6

Idea

STM 2


Review and update Stormwater Detention Calculations.

Cost Avoidance


Advantages: • Could reduce cost • Validate existing design • Justification of calculations if something happens in the field Disadvantages: • None

VE Team Recommended Action Suggest re-evaluation of the stormwater calculations to produce updated storage volume requirements. Design the initial conveyance systems in accordance with Chapter 12 of the LDS to determine if the proposed large detention structures are necessary. It is also recommended that the project team explore the occurrence of flooding outside the project limits which would affect the undersized sewers. Perhaps other issues would occur if the existing storm sewers are undersized as much as the calculations show. Updates to the roadway profile, removal and replacement of pipes located within the project area, and updated roadway profiles could improve the intermediate problems reported in the LDS.

Page 7

Idea

STM 3


Relocation of Detention Facilities.

($1,232,000)


VE Team Recommended Action Remove large box culverts for detention that appears to not be needed based on current calculations. However, should it be needed based on updated evaluation per STM 2 recommendation, VE team supports the idea of relocating the stormwater detention facilities to the acquired property areas.

Advantages: • Could reduce cost if detention is not required • Could reduce detention requirements and resulting impacts Disadvantages: •

STM 4

Loss of use of land acquisition area if detention is required

Review use of Restrictor Manholes.

Advantages: • Reduce cost • Improve constructability Disadvantages: •

None

($24,000)


Design team to reevaluate the need for the special restrictor manholes. These structures are often large, difficult to install, and some have a large increase in price over a standard Type A manhole.

Page 8

Idea


Use steel plate girder with 40inch deep web rather than 48inch deep web.

STR 2

VE Team Recommended Action Use Steel Plate Girders with 40-inch deep web rather than 48-inch deep web.

($186,000)

Advantages: • Reduces cost with same performance Disadvantages: •

None

STR 3A

Relocate south abutment 10feet to the north and relocate the south pier (Pier 1) 5-feet to the north. Resulting structure is 4-span (100-110100-100). Use steel plate girders with 40-inch deep web.

Relocate the south abutment 10-ft further north and the south pier (Pier 1) 5-ft further north.

($271,000)

Advantages: • Reduces cost with same performance Disadvantages: •

None

STR 3B

Use semi-integral abutments in place of stub abutments.

No Change in Cost

Reduce maintenance and extend life of structure

Use semi-integral abutments for this structure.

Advantages: •

IDOT All Bridge Designer memorandum 12.3 (dated July 25, 2012) allows semi-integral abutments to be used if the overall bridge length is less than 550-feet and if the bridge skew is less than 45 degrees. This structure satisfies these conditions. • Longer service life and decreased maintenance costs Disadvantages: •

None

Page 9

Idea

STR 3C


Use drilled shafts rather than piles to support the substructure units.

Potential Cost Avoidance

Optimize and validate design; Improve project delivery time and process

VE Team Recommended Action Design team consider using drilled shaft foundations for this project. The VE team feels strongly that the piles will be a greater cost when considering the side effects of damaged property of the nearby buildings which will then force the construction of the drilled shafts during construction.

Advantages: • Much less vibration and less noise than pile installation. This mitigates risks associated with having to halt pile installation during construction due to vibration-noise issues. • Vertical drilled shafts have good lateral load resistance. This allows Pier 1 and Pier 2 to be placed close to the UPRR without having to account for pile batter in the location of the piers. • Fewer drilled shafts at larger spacing provides more options and opportunities for utilities to cross between the shafts (as compared to piles). Disadvantages: • Drilled shafts will cost more than piles. The additional costs can be estimated after the geotechnical recommendations have been received by the design team.

UTIL 1

Develop specific application to expedite utility relocations.

Advantages: • Could reduce cost • Validate existing design Disadvantages: • None


Improve project delivery time

Determine if ComEd will de-energize power lines during construction; or temporarily relocate lines. Use bridge maintenance right of way to permanently and temporarily locate utilities.

Page 10

Idea

STR 5


Acquire a 15-foot bridge maintenance strip on west side of structure.

Potential Cost Avoidance

Enable construction of bridge. Improve longterm maintenance

VE Team Recommended Action An additional strip of land (approximately 15-feet in width) be acquired on the west side of 25th Avenue between Grant Street and the UP Railroad. This area would provide access from the south to maintain the proposed bridge structure.

Advantages: • Creates space for future maintenance equipment to access the structure Disadvantages: • •

Requires additional land acquisition funding Impacts Cozzi O’Brien building located in the northwest quadrant of Grant Street and 25th Avenue Preliminary Estimated Cost Savings

($1,713,000)

Page 11

Alternative Access to Combined Metals Recommendation ENV 1 Determine NEPA re-evaluation requirements for updates in design of access facilities after ECAD approval.

Recommendation ENV 1 Consider access for UPRR ROW

Page 12

Recommendation ROW 1 & 2 Right of way acquisition is critical path project delivery task. Therefore, the VE team recommends: Update schedule; seek “Quick Take” legislation; use pre-certified acquisition team.

Design

Right of Way

Utility Relocation

Recommendation SCHED 3 Convene design review workshops to reduce number of design submittals.

IDOT/FHWA Typical Tasks

Page 13

Drainage Analysis 2.17 AC 2.17 AC 5.38 AC 5.38 AC Recommendation STM 1 & 2: Consistently use the total tributary area of 5.38 Ac. in drainage analysis; not the development area.

Page 14

Drainage Analysis

Recommendation Recommendation STM STM 3: 3:

Review Review drainage drainage calculations calculations and and potentially eliminate detention eliminate detention facilities. facilities. Estimated Cost Savings: $1,232,000 Estimated Cost Savings: $1,232,000

4

Page 15

Drainage Analysis

Recommendation STM 4: The downstream system limits flow volumes. Review calculations and eliminate restrictor manholes. Estimated Cost Savings: $24,000

Page 16

Structure Analysis

Recommendation STR 2 Use 40 inch deep web girders rather than 48 inch because of shorter main span. See Rec. 3A. Estimated Cost Savings: $186,000

Page 17

Structure Analysis

Recommendation 3A Relocate south abutment and pier closer to tracks enabling shorter main span. Estimated Cost Savings: $271,000

Page 18

Structure Analysis

Recommendation 3C Use drilled shaft foundations to avoid damage to adjacent buildings and provide space for utilities. Estimated Cost Savings: To be determined by utility relocation.

Page 19

Structure Maintenance Analysis

Recommendation STR 5 Acquire right of way and construct Recommendation STR 515 foot wide access roadway.of structure and Narrow separation • Narrow separation of inhibits structure and adjacent buildings adjacent buildings prevents maintenance maintenance of structures. Acquire of structures and limits access to utilities. right of way and construct 15 foot • Estimated Savings: To be determined wide Cost access roadway. by cost of repairs to structure including repairs to structure after access to utilities.

Page 20

Structure Maintenance Analysis Utility Accommodation

Recommendation Recommendation UTIL UTIL 11 •• Determine ComEd will right de-energize Use bridge ifmaintenance of way to power lines during construction; or permanently and temporarily locate temporarily relocate lines. utilities. •• Note that street lights in sidewalk Determine location of are temporary service because of crowded surface and during construction for all utilities subsurface utility locations.

Recommendation UTIL 1 • Use bridge maintenance right of way to permanently and temporarily locate utilities. • Determine location of temporary service during construction for all utilities

Buried and Aerial Utilities • • • • • • •

Water Combined Sanitary and Storm Sewer NiCor Gas both sides ComEd Electrical ATT Fiber and Copper Comcast Others

Page 21

Design Suggestions The VE team identified a number of ideas that because of time limitations, development of conceptual plans, or lack of cost data could not be further developed as recommendations.

Idea SCHED 4 STR 1

DESIGN SUGGESTIONS Explore construction contract packaging and bid procurement. Implement peer review consultant for structure design plans in order to reduce the total review time by IDOT for the bride.

STR 3 D

Lengthen the bridge to provide access to the combined storm/sanitary ssewer along centerline of 25th Street rather than relocating sewer.

TRAF 1

Review Main Street usage and public access considerations.

TRAF 2

Review proposed detour using North Avenue.

ADA 1

Sidewalks should comply with BLR ADA design requirements.

Implementation IDOT is required to report Value Engineering results annually to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). To facilitate the reporting requirement, a Value Engineering Recommendation Approval Form is included in the Appendix.

Page 22

VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY REPORT

Information Phase

Page 23

Project Description The CREATE Program The goals of the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program are to improve freight and passenger rail operations, and to improve highway operations in the Chicago metropolitan area while reducing the environmental impacts of rail operations on the general public. The CREATE Program includes the development of four freight and passenger rail transportation corridors in the Chicago metropolitan area, and also includes rail-highway grade separation projects (over- or under-passes to grade-separate railroads and highways) on existing rail lines. Chicago area freight and passenger rail traffic suffers from congestion, low operating speeds and delays due to traffic demands that exceed the capacity of the Chicago Rail System. The development of the four rail corridors includes the upgrading of existing track structure, the double-tracking or triple-tracking of certain lines, the construction of rail-highway grade separations and rail-rail flyovers, the installation of new or improved signaling, and various other additions and improvements. These improvements will significantly improve freight and passenger rail operations. In addition, the CREATE Program proposes re-routing existing Metra service in order to assist Metra in increasing their capacity and ability to adequately serve the region. Many stations do not have the capacity to handle additional trains which limits the ability for Metra to expand their services. Other stations, conversely, are under-utilized and represent a potential solution. The CREATE Program includes the installation of connections that will shift service to the under-utilized stations thereby enabling Metra to expand their system. The Program also benefits some Amtrak intercity trains. Additionally, there are many rail-highway at-grade intersections throughout the Chicago metropolitan area that cause vehicular delays and congestion, and contribute to air pollution in the region. The construction of the rail-highway grade separations will improve traffic operations and air quality in the Chicago metropolitan area. 25th Avenue Grade Separation (CREATE Project GS-6) The purpose of this project is to provide a grade separation between the 25th Avenue roadway and the Union Pacific Railroad. The project is locally sponsored by the Villages of Melrose Park, Bellwood, and Maywood. 25th Avenue is a four-lane urban arterial roadway which carries an existing ADT of 19,000 and a 2040 projected ADT of 20,000. It is the municipal boundary between the three local agency project sponsors. 25th Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Bellwood throughout the project limits. It is a regionally important north-south route which provides direct access to Interstate, I-290. The existing Union Pacific Railroad (UP) facility has four tracks which cross 25th Avenue at-grade. The UP Proviso Yard is located approximately 790 feet west of the crossing. The tracks are also used by the UP for through freight movements to access their yard and stage their trains. The Metra Union Pacific West line also uses the crossing. The Melrose Park Metra station is approximately 0.4 miles east of the crossing. Presently, there are 94 freight trains, including trains staging within the Proviso Yard, 59 scheduled Metra passenger trains, and additional prepositional Metra trains which travel through the crossing but do not stop at the Melrose Park station. The railroad gates at the crossing can be activated

Page 24

up to 20 minutes per train and in some cases longer, as yard trains move slowly and occasionally stop altogether for staging within the yard. This results in long delays, traffic back-ups, congestion, and vehicular accidents along 25th Avenue. The need of the proposed improvement is to address operations and safety along 25th Avenue, the crossing safety and reduce delays.

Project Location Map

Page 25

Value Engineering Study Team Members The members of the value engineering team are shown in the following table. From time to time, resource team members assisted with obtaining project design information; provided insight into project concepts; and shared cost estimating information with the VE team. Attendance sheets for the days of the workshop are included in the Appendix.

VE Team Member

(names listed alphabetically)

Claire Anderson Terry Beuthling Ron Deverman Craig Hetue Gene Joynt Melissa Kennedy Adin McCann Matt Miller Farhad Rezai Marilin Solomon

VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY TEAM Representing UPRR HNTB HNTB HNTB Knight HNTB HNTB HNTB Rubinos IDOT District PM

Position Railroad Operations VE Facilitator CREATE PMC Project Manager Structures Construction Environmental/Permitting; Civil/Drainage Environmental Drainage Civil & Structures Local Roads/CREATE

VALUE ENGINEERING RESOURCE TEAM Joe Alonzo Rich Battaglia Gregory Boltz Allen Curry Jack Elston Ken Freimuth James Galinsky David Grewe Adrian Gurerrero Gary Marine Jeff Sriver Danielle Stewart Edwin Stoelinga Vinold Thanki Samuel Tuck Suleyman Tulgar Marty Walker Chris Wine

CDOT Melrose Park Globetrotters IDOT IDOT CO UP Globetrotters UPRR UPRR Melrose Park CDOT IDOT CREATE Hancock Globetrotters IDOT CREATE IDOT District 1 Bellwood Globetrotters

CREATE Representative Village Representative GS6 Consultant Structures Railroad Operations GS6 Consultant Railroad Operations Railroad Operations Public Works Representative CREATE Representative Local Roads/CREATE Municipalities GS6 Consultant IDOT Bureau Chief Public Works Representative GS6 Consultant

Page 26

Dates and Locations of Value Engineering Study The value engineering study was conducted from January 28th through February 1st, 2013, at the HNTB Office located at One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, Illinois.

Reference Materials The following material was provided to the value engineering study team on the project information sharing website during the workshop.

REFERENCE MATERIALS IDOT FTP Site: Pub ● District 1 ● 25th Avenue Overpass Phase I Exhibits

Page 27

REFERENCE MATERIALS IDOT FTP Site: Pub ● District 1 ● 25th Avenue Overpass Phase I Exhibits

Project Goals and Objectives The project goals and objectives were discussed and tested with ideas and recommendations in order to validate their appropriateness in terms of performance and cost. Identified Goals and Objectives • Relieve traffic congestion on 25th Avenue • Improve safety • Improve traffic operations • Accommodate commercial access • Improve Grant Street intersection

Page 28

Constraints to the VE Study The constraints were identified by the VE study team and the design team. Both the Project Goals and the Constraints were discussed throughout the value engineering workshop study. The design team has an opportunity to further review and focus on goals and constraints as they apply to individual project components. Identified Constraints • Avoid impacts to existing/planned rail facilities • Minimize impacts to rail traffic and yard operations except for weekend nights • Site and sight constraints • Schedule • Land acquisition • Utility relocations • Access to local businesses • Stakeholder coordination • Validation of previous environmental clearances • Federal oversight/approvals  technical addenda to Phase I documents • ICC coordination  petition and funding • Funding agencies • ICC, IDOT, RR (Phase III) • IDOT (Phase II) • Local agencies, IDOT, Federal CMAQ (Phase I) • Do not change north-south project limits • Issue NTP to contractor by October 15, 2013 • Contract ready approval by Melrose Park by September 23, 2013 • Bid opening by August 30, 2013 • Bid advertisement by August 8, 2013 • Materials  steel for bridge • Aesthetics of retaining walls • Use IDOT pay items • Buy American

Identification of Potential Risks to Scope, Schedule or Costs Throughout the workshop, VE team members recognized that there were risks and pitfalls – situations that could either affect project performance, delay construction, or increase cost. The VE study team and the resource team identified several risks for management and monitoring. • • •

Land acquisition Plan review iterations Funding deadlines – use it or lose it (ICC)

Page 29

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Funding – threats to funding Retaining wall space constraints Detour route and approval Constructability Special waste studies/clearance ATT – 18 months lead time ComEd – 18 – 24 months lead time Nicor Comcast Village of Bellwood sewer and water will be under the bridge and not easily accessible RR access – during and post-construction Lack of contractor access to construction site Environmental document reevaluation Some real estate acquisitions have only verbal commitment Identification of local agency champions and proactivity IDOT/UPRR reviews/approvals/agreement processing Maintain public acceptance and endorsement Lack of access to maintain bridge from Grant Street to railroad

Page 30

Risk Identification 25th Avenue & Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation #6 Risk No.

1 18 20 21 9 10 11 12 2 13 23 8 4 17 16 3 19 5 6 7 15

Action and Management

5 = Very High; 4 = High; 3 = Moderate; 2 = Low; 1 = Very Low; 0 = none

Description - Be SMART (Specific; Measurable; Attainable; Relevant; Temporal)

Opportunity or Threat

Probability

Cost Impact (CI)

Schedule Impact (SI)

Rank

Land acquisition Some real estate acquisitions have only verbal commitment IDOT/UPRR reviews/approvals/agreement processing Maintain public acceptance and endorsement ATT - 18 months lead time for relocation ComEd - 18 - 24 months lead time for relocation Nicor relocation Comcast relocation Plan review iterations Village of Bellwood sewer & water will be under the bridge and not easily accessible Lack of access to maintain bridge from Grant St. to railroad Special waste studies/clearance Funding - threats to funding Environmental document reevaluation Lack of contractor access to construction site Funding deadlines - Use it or lose it (ICC) Identification of local agency champions and proactivity Retaining wall space constraints Detour route and approval Constructability RR access - during and post-construction

Threat Threat Threat Opportunity Threat Threat Threat Threat Threat

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4

4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0

Threat Threat Threat Threat Threat Threat Threat Opportunity Threat Threat Threat Opportunity

5 5 5 3 5 2 2 3 2 3 3 2

4 5 3 4 2 4 4 3 2 1 1 2

3 3 3 4 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 2

4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

4.0

Control Action Avoid Reduce Trigger Transfer Retain Violation of land acquisition schedule Retain Violation of land acquisition schedule Transfer Violation of submittal/review schedule Retain Lack of positive feedback Retain Utility coordination meeting (2/5/13) Retain Utility coordination meeting (2/5/13) Retain Utility coordination meeting (2/5/13) Retain Utility coordination meeting (2/5/13) Retain Violation of submittal/review schedule Retain

Sufficient Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable

Globetrotters Local agency Globetrotters/IDOT Local / state agencies Local agency / Globetrotters Local agency / Globetrotters Local agency / Globetrotters Local agency / Globetrotters IDOT/Globetrotters/Local agency

Utility coordination meeting (2/5/13) Utility coordination meeting (2/5/13) Phase II design

Retain Retain Retain

Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable

IDOT/Globetrotters/Local agency IDOT/Globetrotters/Local agency Globetrotters

Impact change

Transfer

Reasonable

Local agency

Control Rating Sufficient Reasonable Insufficient

Owner

Page 31

Workshop Expectations During presentation and discussion of the project, the VE study and resource teams identified expectations and objectives for the workshop as follows: • •

Independent review of project, schedule, and costs Confirmation of design and analysis criteria

• •

Well defined cost savings Minimize disruption of traffic both rail and vehicular

• •

Less impacts to neighborhoods Define critical path activities

Function Analysis Phase Users, Owners and Stakeholders The VE study team reviewed the users, owners, and stakeholders as stated in the environmental document. A user is one who physically uses the project or maintains the project. An owner is one who is financially responsible for funding the project, shares in the funding, represents the owner’s interest, or manages the project. A stakeholder is anyone who is financially affected by the project, affected by changes in habits or recreation, or environmentally concerned about the project. By reference they are included in the VE report.

USERS, OWNER AND STAKEHOLDERS Entity

User

Owner

Stakeholder

Village of Bellwood

X

X

X

Village of Melrose Park

X

X

X

Union Pacific Railroad

X

X

X

Illinois Department of Transportation

X

Federal Highway Administration

X

Commonwealth Edison

X

X

Comcast

X

X

Nicor Gas

X

X

ATT

X

X

Commuters

X

PACE Transit

X

Thurgood Marshall Elementary School

X

Roosevelt Junior High School

X

Page 32

USERS, OWNER AND STAKEHOLDERS Entity

User

Owner

Stakeholder

Cozzi-O’Brien Recycling

X

X

Bellwood Electric

X

X

YES Auto

X

X

Combine Metals

X

X

Public Storage

X

X

Romero’s Transmissions

X

X

Art’s Grill

X

X

Allied Packaging

X

X

Adjacent Land Owners

X

X

Needs and Desires The VE study team identified the following needs (N) and desires (D) of the users, owners and stakeholders for this project: •

Needs are the functions that must be fulfilled by the project and are imposed by the various users, owners and stakeholders.

•

Desires are functions that are not absolutely necessary and should be fulfilled if cost is not a factor, or which do not otherwise violate a constraint.

Project Expectations

NEEDS AND DESIRES

Need

Improve mobility

X

Minimize environment impact

X

Optimize construction costs

X

Improve operations

X

Reduce maintenance

Desire

X

Improve drainage

X

Protect users

X

Protect workers

X

Accommodate current traffic

X

Accommodate future traffic

X

Minimize user delays during construction

X

Maintain emergency response unit access

X

Assure convenience

X

Control erosion

X

Page 33

Project Expectations

NEEDS AND DESIRES

Need

Meet design criteria

X

Guide traffic

X

Maintain utilities

X

Convey people and goods

X

Maintain existing drainage patterns

X

Maintain project schedule

X

Maintain access with rerouted traffic during construction

X

Desire

Cost Estimate and Cost Analysis The cost analysis sorted the construction components by cost and then applied the principle that 80% of the cost savings could come from the top 20% of the cost items. The Pareto analysis is shown in the following table:

Page 34

Phase I Project Development Report - Preliminary Cost Estimate Route: 25th Avenue Limits: St. Charles Road to Lake Street

VE Study Cost Analysis Revised PDR Data

%

$12,745,000 $2,500,000 $2,051,000

62% 12% 10%

62% 74% 84%

$1,374,000 $750,000 $665,000 $588,000

$1,374,000 $750,000 $665,000 $588,000

90% 94% 97% 100%

$20,678,000

$20,673,000

7% 4% 3% 3% 100%

Item Structures Rail Road Operation Allowance Pavement Shoulders, Curbs and Gutters, Access Road Environmental Remediation Drainage Excavation and Earthwork

PDR Data* $12,745,000 $2,500,000 $2,051,000

Roadway Item Sub-Total* Traffic Protection (2% of roadway items)

2%

$413,000

$413,000

Mobilization

5%

$1,034,000

$1,034,000

15%

$5,169,000

Contingencies (15% of roadway items)*(Designer indicated 15% should have been 25%) Construction Total Right-of-Way XX ; Permanent Easement XX ; Temporary Easement XX TOTAL ESTIMATED COST

25%

Cum. %

$5,168,000

$27,294,000

$27,288,000

$3,000,000

$3,000,000

$30,294,000

$30,288,000

*Values shown appear in PDR vs. actual calculated value. The cost analysis is most beneficial to those projects which contain a number of different design components that have been identified and estimated. For this project, however, there are a number of issues and concerns that were also identified during the risk discussion, the evaluation of the schedule, the expectations for the value engineering study, and the constraints. Each of these analyses yielded ideas for potential development. The cost estimate above did not include estimates for the relocation of the municipal utilities; or the potential costs for the accommodation of temporary and permanent relocation of private utilities. As the project continues in Phase 2, the cost estimate will become more detailed.

Page 35

Function Analysis The core of value engineering is to understand and analyze the functions of the individual components of the project. The VE team reviewed each of the components and asked five basic questions: • What is it? • What does it do? • What does it cost? • What else will do the job? • What does that cost? The VE study team listed the function for each component and sub-component as follows: Component/Element/Material

Function Noun

Verb

Classification

Project Goals Safety

Increase

Safety

Goal

Operations

Manage

Traffic

Goal

Improve

Safety

Goal

Improve

Service

Goal

Avoid

Impacts

Goal

Minimize

Impacts

Goal

Mitigate

Impacts

Goal

Define

Work Zone

Goal

Build

Project

Goal

Manage

Traffic

Goal

Define Comply Submit Coordinate Comply Acquire Inform Consider

Schedule Design Criteria Deliverables Utility Relocation Funding Requirements Right of Way Public Other Modes Environmental Regulations

Environmental

Construction

Project Design Objectives

Comply

Design Objective Design Objective Design Objective Design Objective Design Objective Design Objective Design Objective Design Objective Design Objective

General Project Components Right of Way

Furnish Control Accommodate

Building Site Access Utilities

Basic Basic Basic

Page 36

Component/Element/Material

Function Noun

Union Pacific Railroad

Verb Convey Define Define Permit Convey Define Control Permit Manage Manage

Product Facility Space Access Location Product Right of way Access Crossing Rail Traffic Rail Yard Operations

Security/Public safety

Control

Access

Basic

Public Involvement

Engage Inform Receive Document

Citizens Affected Parties Comments Actions

Basic Basic Basic Basic

Reduce Modify Construct Vertically Separate

Conflicts Access Bridge

Basic Basic Basic

Traffic

Basic

Convey

Traffic

Basic

Span

Space

Basic

Support

Superstructure

Basic

Retain Transfer

Backfill Load

Basic Basic

Transfer

Load

Basic

Support Reduce

Abutment Settlement

Basic Basic

Utilities

Specific Project Components Intersections Grade Separation

Classification Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic

Structures Bridge

Abutment

Piles / Caissons

Page 37

Component/Element/Material

Function Noun

Verb Retain Create Reduce Limit

Earth Work Space Infiltration Excavation

Classification Basic Basic Secondary Secondary

Structural Excavation And Fill

Support Transfer Limit Enable

Load Load Settlement Drainage

Basic Basic Secondary Secondary

Bridge Deck

Carry Span Improve Shed Provide Define Distribute Accommodate Reduce Provide

Load Space Ride Quality Water Friction Traveled Way Load Traffic Maintenance Durability

Basic Basic Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary

Retaining Wall

Retain Retain Reduce

Earth Backfill Acquisitions

Basic Secondary Secondary

Concrete Facial Wall

Increase Prevent

Aesthetics Erosion

Basic Secondary

Pipe Culvert/Box Culvert

Drain Create Support

Water Enclosure Roadway

Basic Basic Basic

Create Relocate Transfer

Grade Material Load

Basic Secondary Basic

Carry Improve Shed Provide

Load Ride Quality Water Friction

Basic Secondary Secondary Secondary

Sheet Pile

Roadway Earthwork

Pavement

Page 38

Component/Element/Material Pavement

Drainage Closed Drainage System

Open Drainage System

Maintenance Of Traffic During Construction or Traffic Management Plan

Temporary Concrete Barrier

Verb Define Distribute Accommodate Reduce Provide

Function Noun Traveled Way Load Traffic Maintenance Durability

Classification Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary

Drain Accommodate Support Support Distribute Provide

Water Capacity Pavement Load Load Working Platform

Basic Basic Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary

Drain Accommodate Detain

Water Capacity Water

Basic Basic Basic

Maintain

Traffic

Basic

Control Operate Maintain Minimize Direct Facilitate Define Protect Protect

Traffic Continuously Access User Delays Motorists Construction Work Zone Workers Motorists

Basic Basic Basic Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary

Guide Protect Protect Separate Separate Redirect

Traffic Workers Motorists Work Zone Traffic Errant Vehicles

Basic Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary

Page 39

Creative Idea Phase Following the function analysis, the VE team created a list of ideas which would satisfy the functions of the various project components. Opportunities for increased performance at a lower cost were prime considerations in generating ideas.

IDEA

No.

Topic

Idea Description

ENV 1

Environmental

ROW 1 ROW 2

Right of Way Right of Way

Review access considerations for Cozzi O’Brien and Combined Metals to assess need for NEPA reevaluation. Develop land acquisition schedule. Develop plan to accelerate land acquisition process.

SCHED 1

Delivery


SCHED 2

Delivery


SCHED 3

Delivery


SCHED 4

Contracts

Explore construction contract packaging and bid procurement.

STM 1

Drainage

Review stormwater drainage and detention design.

STR 1

Structural

Implement peer review consultant for structure design plans.

STR 2

Structural

Reevaluate beam depth of main span.

STR 3A, Structural 3B,3C, & 3D

Reevaluate: 3A South abutment location; 3B Semi Integral abutments; 3C Drilled shafts for sub structure; 3D Lengthening the structure to avoid relocating utilities.

STR 4

Structural

Reevaluate retaining wall design (type and location).

TRAF 1

Traffic

Review Main Street usage and public access considerations.

UTIL 1

Utility

Develop specific application to expedite utility relocations.

TRAF 2

Traffic

Review proposed detour using North Avenue.

ADA 1

Design

Sidewalks should comply with BLR ADA design requirements.

STR 5

Structural


Evaluation Phase The VE team considered each idea individually and discussed the potential performance and cost merits of the proposed changes according to the table below. Increased performance yields higher rankings; and reduced costs yield higher rankings. If an idea provided the same performance at the same cost as the original concept it was ranked as a 3 in both categories and its total ranking would be 6. This idea could still be evaluated at the discretion of the VE team.

Page 40

EVALUATION RANKING OF IDEAS Performance

Rating

Cost

Rating

Total

Poor

1

Costs Much More

1

2

Fair

2

Costs More

2

4

Same as Current Idea

3

Same as Current Idea

3

6

Better

4

Costs Less

4

8

Best

5

Costs Much Less

5

10

Ideas with combined ratings of 5 or below are eliminated from further consideration. Ideas with combined ratings of 6 may be selected for development or may be dismissed. Ideas with combined ratings of 7 or above are selected for development. For some ideas there was not enough information available to fully develop the idea, but the concept still had merit. In that case, the idea became a design suggestion for review by the design team. Evaluation Criteria: Criteria considered in the evaluation of performance and costs are as follows: • • • • • • • • • •

Potential for cost savings, initial and future (life cycle) Enhances operations and maintains mobility No violation of validated constraints Meets needs and satisfies desires of users, owners and stakeholders Safety, including work zone safety Feasibility and constructability Potential for implementation Ability to meet schedules, for both design and construction Engineering judgment and experience Performance measures are clear and well defined in the advantages and disadvantages

Page 41

IDEA EVALUATION No.

Idea Description

ENV 1

Review access considerations for Cozzi O’Brien and Combined Metals to assess need for NEPA reevaluation

Ranking

Action

Performance

Cost

Total

4

3

7

Develop

4

8

Develop

4

4

8

Develop

4

3

7

Develop

Advantages: • Confirm compliance with Federal environmental review procedures Disadvantages: •

Time and effort Develop land acquisition schedule.

ROW 1

4

Advantages: • Positively affects the bidding and construction schedule • Identify critical path activities Disadvantages: •

None Develop plan to accelerate land acquisition process.

ROW 2

Advantages: • Condense schedule for project implementation Disadvantages: •

None

SCHED 1


Advantages: • Establishes common commitments and sets expectations • Validates deliverable schedule and submission/review dates Disadvantages: •

None

Page 42

IDEA EVALUATION No.

Idea Description

SCHED 2


Ranking

Action

Performance

Cost

Total

4

4

8

Develop

4

4

8

Develop

4

3

7

Develop

4

8

Develop

Advantages: • Establishes common goals Disadvantages: •

None

SCHED 3


Advantages: • Establishes common goals • Reinforce team approach to project delivery Disadvantages: •

May not follow IDOT standard processing time

SCHED 4

Explore construction contract packaging and bid procurement.

Advantages: • Streamline project implementation • Consistent with aggressive goal schedule • Potentially more competitive bids Disadvantages: • STM 1

Coordination/management of multiple contracts creates risk Review stormwater drainage and detention design.

4

Advantages: • Could reduce cost • Could reduce detention requirements and resulting impacts • Validate existing design • Smaller size contracts could allow greater DBE participation Disadvantages: •

None

Page 43

IDEA EVALUATION No.

Idea Description Implement peer review consultant for structure design plans.

STR 1

Ranking

Action

Performance

Cost

Total

5

3

8

Develop

4

3

7

Develop

4

3

7

Develop

3

3

6

Validated Existing Design

Advantages: • Expedited review schedule • Could reduce review iterations • Allows for phased plan reviews Disadvantages: • •

Small increase in plan preparation costs Time to process additional consultant contract Reevaluate beam depth of main span.

STR 2

Advantages: • Could reduce cost • Validate existing design Disadvantages: •

None

STR 3A, 3B, 3C & 3D

Reevaluate: 3A South abutment location; 3B Semi Integral abutments; 3C Drilled shafts for sub structure; 3D Lengthening the structure to avoid relocating utilities.

Advantages: • Could reduce cost • Validate existing design Disadvantages: • STR 4

None Reevalute retaining wall design (type and location).

Advantages: • Could reduce cost • Validate existing design Disadvantages: •

None

Page 44

IDEA EVALUATION No. TRAF 1

Idea Description Review Main Street usage and public access considerations.

Ranking

Action

Performance

Cost

Total

3

3

6

Design Suggestion

4

3

7

Develop

3

3

6

Design Suggestion

3

3

6

Design Suggestion

Advantages: • Address concern of public safety Disadvantages: • UTIL 1

None Develop specific application to expedite utility relocations.

Advantages: • Expedite construction start date and completion date • Avoid conflicts with bride contractor Disadvantages: •

TRAF 2

None Review proposed detour using North Avenue.

Advantages: • Validate existing design Disadvantages: •

ADA 1

None Sidewalks should comply with BLR ADA Design requirements.

Advantages: • Meets current design requirements Disadvantages: •

None

Page 45

IDEA EVALUATION No. STR 5

Idea Description

Ranking Performance

Cost

Total

5

2

7


Action Develop

Advantages: • Creates space for future maintenance equipment to access the structure • Creates space for temporary relocation of utilities during construction • Creates space for permanent relocation of utilities after construction Disadvantages: • •

Requires additional land acquisition funding Impacts Cozzi O’Brien building located in the northwest quadrant of Grant Street and 25th Avenue

Development Phase Ideas for Development Those ideas from the Evaluation Phase, which had an idea rating 7 or higher were selected for development. Development worksheets were prepared for each idea. In some cases, additional information for design considerations was also provided in the development worksheet format for consideration. In several cases, cost estimating information was still in development or being revised for the project. The VE team therefore estimated that the costs for several of the ideas would vary depending upon the conditions at the time the ideas were implemented. The worksheets discuss these conditions when possible. At the conclusion of each worksheet is the recommendation for the idea. Please refer to the Summary of Recommendations in the Executive Summary.

Presentation of Recommendations Agenda Date: Friday, February 1, 2013 Time: 10:00 A.M. Location: HNTB Office, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 1. Self-Introductions and Attendance Sign-In .................................................................................... All 2. Review Value Engineering Study and Summary of Process ...................................... Terry Beuthling 3. Presentation of Recommendations .....................................................................VE Team Members 4. Questions, Comments and Discussion ........................................................................................... All

Page 46

Minutes of Meeting 25th & UPRR Grade Separation

Title

CREATE Program Project GS6 Value Engineering (VE) Study Presentation Date

02-01-2013

Time

10:00 am

Place

HNTB, 1 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 900, Training Room Chicago, IL

Participants

See attached Attendance Sheet Melissa Kennedy/Adin McCann, 5 February 2013

Prepared by

Attendance/Roles & Responsibility:

See attached Attendance Sheet

1.

Welcome & Introductions: Ron Deverman, the HNTB CREATE Program Manager, welcomed everyone and had all attendees introduce themselves. In addition, Danielle Stewart, the CREATE Program Manager for IDOT, also provided a few opening remarks and thanked the VE team for their work.

2.

VE Study Overview: Terry Beuthling (HNTB) gave a brief overview of the value engineering (VE) process and the specific outcomes of the GS6 VE Study. This discussion included the following: A. B. C. D. E. F.

3.

Identification of the GS6 VE Team and the VE Resource Team; Summary of the year 2011 VE results in Illinois; FHWA perspective on VE studies and their role in the project development process; The core objectives of VE, which includes: improve performance, reduce risks, reduce costs, and identify value mismatch. Positive results in a VE study can be obtained in several ways including, but not limited to: increased performance and reduced cost; reduced cost with no performance change; or significant increases in performance with minimal increases in cost. The GS6 VE study evaluated 22 ideas. Nineteen (19) of the ideas were developed into recommendation focused on reducing cost, reducing risk, identifying critical path tasks for project delivery, providing choices to the design team, and identifying potential opportunities to accommodate the myriad of existing utilities.

Presentation of Recommendations: The VE Team presented the specific ideas and recommendations evaluated during the week-long VE workshop. This discussion, which was divided into major discussion topics, is summarized below. A.

Drainage: Matt Miller (HNTB) presented the drainage design review findings and presented the following:

Page 47

i.

ii. iii.

iv.

v. B.

The provided Phase I design documents, including the Location Drainage Study (LDS), presented some inconsistencies with regard to the drainage calculations. The calculations and supporting documentation have also created some question as to whether detention is really required as part of the proposed project. The drainage analysis is broken up into 3 areas which each have their own existing outlet from the project. The design documents indicate no flooding problems; however it was noted that the 3 existing outlets were undersized. Drainage calculations for the 3 areas included only the developed area and not the entire drainage area. The VE Team recommends that this be re-evaluated following IDOT Drainage Manual requirements. The proposed project does not increase the impervious area and therefore does not increase run-off. Consequently, the VE Team questions the need for the proposed detention, especially since the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) indicates the proposed storm sewers will operate sufficiently (i.e., keep storm water in the sewer system and not surcharging onto the roadway). Should the large box culverts not be needed for detention, some cost savings could be achieved. A question was raised by an audience member as to whether the box culverts are part of the proposed drainage plan or the existing conditions. Matt responded that the large box culverts are proposed to be constructed as part of the GS6 project. Therefore, if they could be eliminated, an estimated cost savings of approximately $1.2 million dollars could occur. The VE Team noted that the downstream storm sewer system is undersized; therefore, it acts as natural restrictor. Given this situation, the VE Team questions whether the proposed control structures are needed to further restrict the storm water runoff. The VE Team suggests that the special restrictor manhole connections to the existing downstream outlets may not be needed and could be replaced by regular manholes. This potential change could result in a cost savings of approximately $24K. The total estimated potential cost savings from the VE Team’s drainage recommendations is $1,256,000.

Schedule: Melissa Kennedy presented a discussion on the project schedule. i. The VE Team, in conjunction with the design team, developed a preliminary milestone project schedule on the first day of the VE workshop. The preliminary schedule was based on the design team’s indicated desire to break ground on the project in the Fall of 2013. The preliminary schedule was developed working backwards from this date and included major milestones. The preliminary schedule showed some red flags based on the desired milestone dates and the actual timeframes needed to complete the remaining work tasks. ii. The VE Team developed a new and more detailed schedule with input from several VE Resource Team members, including IDOT, the design team, the UP Railroad, and the local agencies. The schedule showed three things: 1.) The critical path is the real estate acquisition process which, assuming “quick take” condemnation procedures, puts the construction start date in September 2014; 2.) The final design, including all of the required reviews by the various agencies,

Page 48

is not on the critical path; and 3.) The utility relocation process to the point of agreement on/approval of the utility relocations plan could be complete by the end of 2013. iii. Additionally, three other things were pointed out: 1.) The schedule could allow for the consideration of initiating a separate steel fabrication contract if there was a need to speed up construction; 2.) Mainline construction duration could be limited to 6-7 months, if all of the utilities are clear prior to start; and 3.) There was little information provided on the sequencing and proposed plan for utility relocations. iv. There were several follow-up questions and subsequent discussions regarding the land acquisition process for the project. Emphasis was made by IDOT and CREATE Program Managers that the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (Uniform Act) and the IDOT land acquisition procedures must be followed. The city of Bellwood indicated that they were confident in their ability to efficiently acquire the land needed to construct the project. Several informal discussions have already occurred and the major landowners and they are supportive of the project. IDOT recommended that no further discussions occur with the landowner without first consulting IDOT Land Acquisition Staff (Sheila Dirka) to clarify the process requirements. C.

Structures: Craig Hetue (HNTB) along with Farhad Rezai (RME) presented the VE team recommendations for the structural elements: i. The VE Team suggested that, if design schedule becomes a concern, the design team could utilize an independent (peer) consultant to review the bridge plans in accordance with IDOT procedures. This process, if used, could speed up the IDOT review/approval process which currently consists of the IDOT Bureau of Bridges taking 6-9 months to review/approve final bridge plans. ii. The VE Team suggested the use of 40-inch web plate girders on the bridge may be possible in-stead of 48-inch girders. This would reduce amount of steel required, lower the overall road profile corresponding to reduction in MSE wall and fill. Cost savings could be approximately $186,000. iii. The Bridge Type Study indicated that the south abutment was located to accommodate the turnaround access for Combined Metals Company. However, with the alternative design concept to route the access road through the Cozzi O’Brien property west of 25th Avenue, the bridge abutment could be moved approximately 10 feet north. It appears that there is also room to move the south pier (Pier 1) about 5-ft closer to the UPRR right-of-way. The resulting bridge configuration would be a 4-span (100-110-100-100) structure. This results in a cost savings of approximately $271,000. With shorter spans, 40-inch web steel plate girders discussed above are reasonable. iv. The VE Team suggests the use of semi-integral abutments at the current expansion joint locations. Using semi-integral abutments eliminates the need for an expansion joint at the end of the bridge deck and the joint is relocated to the opposite end of the approach slab. Experience has shown that moving the

Page 49

expansion joints away from the bridge deck end provides better protection for the superstructure, decreases maintenance costs and increases overall service life. v. The proposed plan is to utilize metal shell piles to support the bridge. However, this could cause increased noise and vibration for businesses and homes located in close proximity to the construction activities. The vibration could also cause potential damage to adjacent buildings which, in turn, could increase the overall project cost. The VE Team suggests that consideration instead be given to using drilled shafts. Although they cost more, they would cause less vibration and fewer are required to support the same load. Additionally, the space between the drilled shafts could be used to support utility relocations. Drilled shafts would cost more; however, the additional cost may be worthwhile to avoid some of the identified issues. vi. The design consists of tall MSE walls (25-ft at abutments) which could limit access/maintenance to existing sanitary sewer located along centerline of 25th Street, as well as other utilities in the tight right-of way. Utility relocation may be difficult due to the overall space constraints of the corridor. Lengthening the proposed bridge will result in lower height retaining walls thereby al-lowing for maintenance of the buried municipal utilities. A longer bridge will cost more; however, the cost could be offset by avoiding the relocation and maintenance of buried municipal utilities. D.

Utilities/Bridge Maintenance: Gene Joynt (Knight) presented the recommendations to address the utility and bridge maintenance constraints. To expand upon the utility discussion, Gene presented a photo showing the existing ComEd power poles along the west side of 25th Street near the Cozzi O’Brien building. The location of the proposed MSE wall was also pointed out to help illustrate and emphasize the very limited space to place the relocated utilities. The ComEd lines must be de-energized prior to bridge construction due to their proximity to the proposed bridge. There are also OSHA safety requirements that must be considered to provide appropriate clear space between operating cranes and the power lines. In addition, the proposed design does not provide space for equipment access for maintenance on the bridge south of the railroad. The VE Team suggests expanding the proposed right-of-way on the west side to allow for access and future structure maintenance. In addition, this access space could be utilized for the relocation of the utilities. This would result in taking a portion of the Cozzi O’Brien building. A member of the audience asked why not utilize the relocated access road for bridge maintenance and utility relocations. The response is that this would need to be designated as a permanent easement through the middle of the Cozzi O’Brien property. Some of the utilities could be relocated along this road, but it would still be difficult to utilize for sewer and water due to the service connections. The overall message by the VE Team is that the utility relocations are a big constraint that requires further evaluation/consideration.

E.

Environmental: Adin McCann and Melissa Kennedy presented environmental related recommendations:

Page 50

i.

Adin indicated that the NEPA environmental documentation may require an update to reevaluate the potential changes to the approved Phase I design. This reevaluation would consider the changes associated with the proposed relocation of the Combined Metals access road. Based on the VE Team’s review, it appears that the approximate limits of construction appear to be covered in the most recent Environmental Survey Request (ESR). That being said, the VE Team recommends that the design team coordinate with FHWA and IDOT to confirm the need and requirements for a potential reevaluation of the NEPA environmental document. The need to update the NEPA environmental document is most likely a procedural issue and should not significantly impact the schedule. ii. In addition, Adin presented the overall bridge profile to show that the proposed profile of 25th Avenue is 7%. According to the IDOT Bureau of Local Roads & Streets Manual, any accessible route with a slope greater than 1V:20H (5.00%) is considered a ramp and shall include level landings at the bottom and top of each run. This issue appeared to be identified during one of the Phase I design coordination meetings; however it is unclear from the Project Development Report (PDR) and the Phase I design plans that this consideration made it into the design. The VE Team recommends that the design team include the ADA requirements per the IDOT Manual. iii. Melissa indicated that the revised access (previously from 25th Ave.) to Cozzi O’Brien will be along Main Street and under the proposed bridge. This route is next to a residential neighborhood and the project safety requirements include restricting access under the bridge by the public. The VE Team suggested a fence with a gate be constructed across Main Street at the bridge. The gate could be open during business hours, but then closed during non-work hours to prevent public access under the bridge. In addition, the VE Team recommended signage be placed on the residential streets to restrict truck traffic to Main Street and 19th Avenue and keep out of the neighborhood. 4.

Risk Analysis: At the request of the workshop participants, Terry reviewed the risk assessment process that was completed by the VE Team to show what items pose the greatest threat to the successful implementation of the project. These items generally have the greatest potential to affect project scope, schedule, and budget. The greatest risks to the GS6 project include the land acquisition, the various agencies’ review/approvals process, municipal and private utility relocations, and design plan review iterations.

5.

Next Steps: Terry indicated that the VE Team would be sending IDOT draft worksheets within the five (5) working days to summarize the ideas and recommendation discussed during today’s preparation. Upon receiving comments from IDOT, the VE Team will update the worksheets and incorporate into the draft VE workshop report. It is anticipated that a complete draft report will be submitted to IDOT for review in approximately 10 days.

The presentation ended at approximately 12:00 p.m.

Page 51

The following representatives attended the presentation of the value engineering study.

VALUE ENGINEERING PRESENTATION ATTENDEES Name

Representing

Claire Anderson Joe Alonzo Rich Battaglia Terry Beuthling Gregory Boltz Chris Byars Ron Deverman James Galinsky David Grewe Bob Hegstrom Craig Hetue Charles Hodges Gene Joynt

UPRR CDOT Melrose Park HNTB Globetrotters FHWA HNTB Globetrotters UPRR GEC HNTB Village of Bellwood Knight

Melissa Kennedy

HNTB

Soliman Khudeira Sung Lee Adin McCann Matt Miller Scott Phillips Farhad Rezai Marilin Solomon Danielle Stewart Edwin Stoelinga Jack Svaicer Vinold Thanki Bill Thompson Jakita Trotter Peter Tsious Samuel Tuck Marty Walker Chris Wine

CDOT GEC HNTB HNTB Village of Bellwood Rubinos IDOT District PM IDOT CREATE Hancock GEC Globetrotters AAR IDOT Village of Bellwood IDOT CREATE Village of Bellwood Globetrotters

Position Railroad Operations CREATE Representative Village Representative VE Facilitator GS6 Consultant Civil CREATE PMC Project Manager GS6 Consultant Railroad Operations Civil Structures Civil Construction Environmental/Permitting; Civil/Drainage Civil/Structures Civil Environmental Drainage Civil & Structures Local Roads/CREATE Local Roads/CREATE Municipalities Arch. GS6 Consultant Railroad Operations PI IDOT Bureau Chief Public Works GS6 Consultant

Page 52

APPENDICES

Page 53

JOB PLAN

Page 54

Value Engineering Job Plan Discussion and Notes Thursday, January 3, 2013 CREATE GS#6; 99-00094-00-GS; 25th Ave at UPRR VE Workshop: January 28 – February 1, 2013 1. Pre-Study Phase a. Pre-workshop conference call clarifies initial expectations for VE study. i. The expectations were general and requested the VE to address the design issues including a potential detour route. b. Define workshop schedule. Consider workshop methodology. Job Plan reviewed. c. Select team members according to major project functions and VE team characteristics. Candidate members were discussed: i. IDOT Structures – Central Office Jack Elston ii. IDOT Local Roads – Marilin Solomon, plus another iii. IDOT Construction – Gene Joynt, iv. Municipalities – potential representative with knowledge of other local projects; v. Railroad operations – Bill Thompson, Dave Crewey, Jeff Sriver vi. Traffic – Detour route; structure clearances and weight limits; again a local representative who would have knowledge of the detour routes vii. Utilities – local utility locations and project coordination requirements; local roads person and perhaps the utilitly representative viii. ECAD – a VE team member with knowledge of the environmental requirements of the project; ix. CDOT – a combination of district and local roads personnel x. Program Development – a representative to be discussed xi. Environmental – road was transferred to Bellwood by IDOT with some potential environmental constraints. d. Prepare agenda; arrange facilities, computers, and support equipment prior to workshop – i. HNTB offices are being reserved for the VE workshop e. Gather information prior to VE workshop; especially performance (operation) and cost model(s). i. Marilin Solomon has requested information from Globetrotters. f. Brief VE team on process and share project information prior to workshop. 2. Information Phase a. Welcome and brief team members of VE methodology and workshop materials. b. Presentation of project by design team with field review. c. Identify project goals, purpose and need. d. Identify and validate constraints – validate constraints by Ed from Hancock/Village i. Right of way ii. Structure type iii. UPRR operations iv. Detour route e. Identify expectations for VE workshop. List areas of interest on a flip chart as group exercise. f. Identify items of risk. These are events that may require action to prevent from occurring. g. Review and verify performance and cost model(s). h. Identify users, owners, and stakeholders; and discuss issues of Need and Desire. 3. Function Analysis Phase a. Define and classify project and component functions using cost model as a guide (80/20). b. Identify functions and relationships with lists and/or FAST diagrams. c. Determine worth of functions including user costs if appropriate. d. Review expectations list for other components or procedures for analysis. e. Identify function mismatches for study. HNTB 2012.01.24

Page 55

4. Creative Phase a. Encourage all team members to suggest ideas. Avoid pre-judging of ideas. b. Refer to diagrams, maps, reports, and plans for additional concepts. c. Identify creativity goals: number of ideas and discovery of critical components. d. Log ideas for team reference to encourage spring boarding. e. Back check to verify unwanted functions or actions (risks) are eliminated or reduced. 5. Evaluation Phase a. Sort and group ideas. Refine, re-describe, and clarify suggestions. b. Rate ideas based on improved performance and reduced cost: Dismiss, Suggest, or Develop. c. If needed, identify and weight evaluation criteria with techniques such as Paired Comparisons. d. Consider a multi-step process to identify, rate, and rank ideas as proposals for development. 6. Development Phase a. Distribute and discuss master worksheet, especially idea development tabs. b. Validate design with operations and conceptual plan. c. Use traffic models, analysis reports, or preliminary plans if available. d. Summarize recommendations with performance and cost attributes. 7. Presentation Phase a. Present or provide recommendations to management. b. Prepare preliminary report and provide to management. i. Jose indicated that he would furnish an example report to HNTB for use in preparing a similar report for this project. c. Prepare final report based on decisions for each recommendation. d. Follow up with management after their review of final report.

HNTB 2012.01.24

Page 56

WORKSHOP AGENDA

Page 57

CREATE GS#6; 99-00094-00-GS; 25th Ave at UPRR January 28 – February 1, 2013 Workshop Agenda Monday, January 28, 2013 HNTB Offices, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606 8:00 am Team Meet and Greet 8:15 am Value Engineering Process Presentation and Training Project Team Presentation of the Project Goals and Objectives Constraints and Controlling Decisions Potential Risks 10:30 am Digital Site Visit 12:00 pm Working Lunch (meal provided) 1:00 pm Continue Investigation Phase Function Analysis – Define Functions 5:00 pm Adjourn for the Day Tuesday, January 29, 2013 HNTB Offices, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606 8:00 am Continue Investigation; Begin Creative Phase 12:00 pm Working Lunch (meal provided) 1:00 pm Continue Creative Phase; Begin Evaluation Phase 5:00 pm Adjourn for the Day Wednesday, January 30, 2013 HNTB Offices, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606 8:00 am Continue Evaluation; Begin Development Phase 12:00 pm Working Lunch (meal provided) 1:00 pm Continue Development 4:30 pm Group Progress Reports 5:00 pm Adjourn for the Day Thursday, January 31, 2013 HNTB Offices, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606 8:00 am Continue Development Phase 12:00 pm Working Lunch (meal provided) 1:00 pm Complete Development 4:30 pm Group Progress Reports 5:00 pm Adjourn for the Day Friday, February 1, 2013 HNTB Offices, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606 8:00 am Final Review of Recommendations 9:00 am Team Revises and Rehearses Presentation 10:00 am Presentation of VE Findings (via video conference) 12:00 noon Adjourn

Illinois Department of Transportation Value Engineering Study CREATE GS#6; 99-00094-00-GS; 25th Ave at UPRR January 28 – February 1, 2013

Page 58

Welcome to the CREATE GS#6; 99-00094-00-GS; 25th Ave at UPRR VE Study Thank you for being a part of the value engineering team for the VE Study on January 28 to February 1, 2013. A draft Agenda of the workshop is attached for your reference. The dress code will be business casual. Other members of the team include subject matter experts from approval agencies, federal officials, community leaders, lead agency staff, consultants, local technical staff, and other stakeholders. The value engineering study workshop will be conducted according to federal guidelines in six phases: • • • • • •

Investigation of existing information Function analysis of existing service area and project components Listing creative ideas as potential alternative solutions Evaluating ideas Developing ideas into recommendations Presenting recommendations to management

At the conclusion of the workshop, the value engineering team will present their findings to the project design team, IDOT management, and stakeholders. A decision will be made for each recommendation from the following actions: Accept the recommendation Reject the recommendation Accept the recommendation for further study The value engineering study will be conducted at the following locations: Monday through Friday HNTB Offices One South Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Map Link Value Engineering Study Phases The value engineering (VE) team documents the VE study as it goes through the phases described below. The team members will provide interim review of the report throughout the study and final review before the report is printed. Information and Investigation The VE team begins the study by investigating the project. Several pages are provided in the report to document what is known about the project and what documents are available upon which the team will base the development of their recommendations. Often, teams want to rush right into speculating solutions before they have taken the time to acquaint themselves with the information that is already available. The Investigation Phase of the report enables and encourages the team to delve into the available information first. The project office provides some of this information, but team members may also contact other offices and state and local agencies for


Page 59

additional information that will apply to the project. Good groundwork in the Investigation Phase is important to providing viable recommendations later in the study. The investigation process encourages team building and allows the team members to get to know each other and identify areas of expertise. The design team and management will brief the VE team and conduct a field review. The VE team also reviews and documents available project information. They develop lists of authorizing persons, personal contacts for the study, and available references. The team spends an adequate amount of time to acquaint themselves with all of the documents, photos, and other information provided. During this process, the team develops a list of available documents, including when they were prepared. This provides a record of the document versions the team used as the basis for the VE recommendations. Once the team is familiar with the project and the available documentation, they need to agree upon and document the objective of the study and any constraints or controlling decisions that will affect the recommendations they develop. The Investigation Phase provides the VE team with a thorough understanding of the project and what the VE study is expected to accomplish. Function Analysis Phase The VE team will review traffic operations and travel projection data to better understand the purpose and need of the project and its functions in serving the area and the transportation system. From the cost estimate, project components and their costs will be identified and compared to their functions. For materials cost investigation, the top 20% of the cost items usually will provide an opportunity for 80% of the cost savings. The VE workshop will determine if the top 20% of the items merit further study. Based on the study objective, the team will determine the primary and secondary functions of the project components in verb/noun format. A function analysis is performed listing those components that offer performance improvements and potential cost savings. Sometimes, using a FAST diagram may also assist to determine the critical path necessary to accomplish each primary function of the project. A review of the VE study expectations may also identify topics and components for the function analysis that offer added value based on parameters other than cost. The VE team will also review those topics. A qualitative risk identification will also be conducted to better understand the constraints; and possible actions that could be employed to prevent unwanted events from occurring.

During the Creative Phase, the VE team brainstorms ideas that satisfy the project functions. A team member can explain an idea to the rest of the team, but no evaluation is allowed at this point. Off-thewall, out-of-the-box ideas should be encouraged, as they often lead to innovative, workable solutions. The VE team facilitator will list all of the brainstorm ideas, even the most improbable. Similar ideas will be grouped and may be combined. Some ideas may be interdependent as well. Evaluation Phase The Evaluation Phase begins by going back through the groups of ideas brainstormed during the Creative Phase to determine those that have fatal flaws. Ideas that are not viable will be dropped.


Page 60

The team lists the advantages and disadvantages of each idea that warrants further consideration. If the disadvantages of an idea outweigh the advantages, in number or importance, that idea should not be considered further. When all of the ideas have been evaluated, the most promising may further be evaluated according to performance improvements and cost reductions. The evaluation is used to determine which idea ranks highest against desired criteria. During the evaluation, some ideas may be combined, refined or expanded. If possible, an idea champion will be identified to develop the ideas as part of a subgroup. The evaluation is the final step in determining which ideas will be developed into recommendations. Development Phase The team leader will accept volunteers or assign a subgroup to develop the appropriate documentation and description for each recommendation. The VE team will review the advantages and disadvantages and further develop performance improvements for each idea and document their findings in the idea development worksheet. The VE team also needs to include cost estimates when developing recommendations. Although the goal of value engineering is to add value, due to the nature of projects and funding, we must also consider and document cost savings and costs added. Presentation Phase The team develops a presentation to be given on the final day of the study to the project team and other project stakeholders, such as project owners and managers, and other agencies. VE Workshop Tools and Materials The workshop will initially be a group discussion with notes taken by the facilitator on flip charts to be posted for reference throughout the duration of the workshop. The VE team will then break into smaller groups to develop ideas into recommendations. Hard copies of the available reference material will be provided for use by the VE team. Other material may be in digital format. The Development Phase worksheets will be prepared in digital format. Flash drives will be provided with the worksheet forms for copying on to your computer. Therefore, if you have availability to a laptop, please bring it to the workshop. Other materials you may want to bring include: • • • • •

Calculators Recent bid tabulations Triangles and scales for sketches Computation pads Other tools as you see fit

It will be tempting, and understandable, for you to be in contact with your other projects for part of the study. Some breaks will be provided for your convenience; however, you can understand why there is a need to please refrain from other work distractions during the workshop activity. The systematic approach of value engineering enables a team approach and a positive shared experience. Previous VE teams have enjoyed the opportunity to work with colleagues during the workshop and assist the design team with the project.


Page 61

VALUE ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION

Page 62

CREATE GS #6: 25th Avenue/UPRR

Melrose Park & Bellwood 25th Avenue & Union Pacific Grade Separation #6 Value Engineering Study January 28 to February 1, 2013 CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

Origins of Value Engineering

Welcome and Introductions CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

Terry Beuthling, PE, CVS Certified Value Specialist (CVS) 40+ years experience Planning, design and construction $100,000 to $1 billion Federal, state, local and private projects VE workshops on projects of $300,000 to $600 million each CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

Began at General Electric during WWII Supply channels were disrupted Staff evaluated substitute materials Analyzed functions of parts in 6 steps System was called “Value Analysis” Renamed the system “Value Engineering” and received a federal grant Value Engineering was born CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

CVS Certification Requirements 80 hours of class room training 480 hours of workshop experience 2500 word scholarly paper 10 hours of outreach presentations 100 hours of association contributions 4½ hour exam

CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

Page 63

VE Workshop Essentials

Value Engineering Essentials CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013


VE Team Skill Sets



Some VE Team Technical Skill Sets Operations

Cost estimating

Environment

MOT/TCP

Roadway

Construction

Structure

Communication

Drainage

Documentation


VE Team Member Relationship Skills Collaborative Innovative Inquisitive Communicative Visionary Respectful Helpful

Value engineering team Value methodology Collaborative climate Analysis tools and data 3 to 5 days Facilitate and document discussion Recommendations and report

System perspective Clarifies concepts Perceives cause and effects Listens well Shares information Positive attitude

When is the Best Time to Do a Value Engineering Study? CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

Page 64

FHWA Suggests Perform VE studies twice: during the concept stage during the design stage “VE studies are performed to add value to a project, not simply to reduce costs.” CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

Operations analysis Materials alternatives Constructability Design exceptions Alternative designs Public understanding Cost analysis Second opinion CREATE GS#6 99-00094-00-GS 25th Ave at UPRR Melrose Park & Bellwood, IL January 28 to February 1, 2013

Project Schedule and Budgets Conceptual Analysis Alternatives Analysis

Ease of Change

Typical Workshop Topics

Preliminary Design Final Design

VE?

Core Functions – Planning and Design HOW? Facilitate Decision

Construction

1 – 3 years / 85-90% of budget 1 to 2 years / 3-6% of budget 1 to 3 years / 2-4% of budget 1 to 3 years / 1-3% of budget 1 to 2 years/

Value Engineering - create

Value Engineering - create

Suggest Documents

Value Engineering

VALUE ENGINEERING

Determined to Create Value - Kordsa

selling today: partnering to create value, student value ... - Google Sites

selling today: partnering to create value, student value ... - Google Sites

selling today: partnering to create value, student value ... - Google Sites

Value Engineering - MedIND

Value Engineering Manual - CT.gov

What is Value Engineering

When do Joint Ventures Create Value? - CiteSeerX

Developing leaders who create value sustainably - Ashridge ...

How Securities Exchanges Create Value? - Sciedu Press

How Brand Community Practices Create Value - CiteSeerX

Do Spinoffs Create Value in Hong Kong?

How private equity investors create value

Determined to Create Value - Kordsa Global

Developing leaders who create value sustainably - Ashridge ...

Value Engineering Change Proposal Specification

value engineering through - R Systems

implementation of value engineering - IndianResearchJournals.Com

VALUE ENGINEERING A VITAL TOOL

It's VALUE ENGINEERING! - R Systems

It's VALUE ENGINEERING! - R Systems