The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Boston, Massachusetts

1. Capital Program Implementation Through Construction Management at Risk Delivery Methods-An Owner’s Perspective The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Boston, Massachusetts H. Sleiman, P.E., CCM Director, Capital Programs and Environmental Affairs

2. Definition of Massport • Massport is an independent authority governed by a board of directors, appointed by the state’s governor • Massport owns and operates • Boston-Logan International Airport • Hanscom Field, Bedford, MA • Worcester Airport • Conley Container Terminal • Black Falcon Cruiseport • Various real estate assets

3. Overview • Rolling 5-Year Program • Developed through Comprehensive and Coordinated Merit Process to Meet the Authority’s Priorities of: • Safety • Security • Operational Efficiencies • Sustainability • Customer Services • Reflects Current Financial Constraints • Limits Increases to the Rates and Charges

4. Proposed FY10-14 Capital Program Total Projects Massport Funds: CFC Funds: Private Funds: Contingent On Funding Source (CFS) Projects: Unfunded: FY10-14 379 $737M $271M $46M $431M $585M

5. Spending Distribution By Facility(Does Not Include CFS, Private Capital) FY10-14 Agency-wide Hanscom Field Logan Airport Maritime Worcester Airport 4.6% 1.8% 85.6% 7.6% 0.4% $46M $18M $865M $77M $4M

6. By Category

7. Capital Programs Statistics • Average Annual Number of Construction Awards • Average Total Per Year • Average Annual Number of Consultant Awards • Average Total Per Year 44 $150 M 41 $48 M

8. Program implementation prior to legislation passed on July 19, 2004, project delivery method was “Design – Bid – Build” Project Delivery Method Traditional Design – Bid – Build • CONS • Contractor Qualifications • Adversarial Relationship • Claims / Litigation Mentality • Quality • Additional Oversight Costs PROS Familiarity Owner Friendly Contract Language Price Competition Lowest Initial Cost

9. Design-Bid-Build Internal Resources • Standard Contract Documents • Standard Procedures/Guidelines • Clear Project Expectations • Simple Contract Negotiations • Minimal Legal Involvement • Minimal Project Controls • Simple Accounting Interface • M/W/DBE Compliance

10. Project Delivery MethodCM at Risk Guaranteed Maximum Price PROS • Qualified Contractor • Professional Working Relationship   • Team Collaboration /Realignment During Project • Cost, Schedule, Quality Control Experience • Pre-Construction Services Program implementation post-legislation passed on July 19, 2004, project delivery method was “Design – Bid – Build” • Allows CM at Risk for vertical projects valued at $5M or above • Allows for Design Build for horizontal projects valued at $5M and above CONS  • Lack of Familiarity   • Develop or Select Contract Documents  • Additional Procurement Time  • Higher Initial Bid Price

11. CM at Risk Internal Resources • New Contract Documents • Increased Contract Negotiations • Lack of Standard Procedures • Increased Legal Involvement • Increased Procurement Involvement/Time • Increased Project Controls Support • Contingency – Mine or Yours?

12. Change in Implementation • Central Garage Addition and Renovations • $200M Value • CM: Turner Construction • New Terminal A • $500M Value • CM: Skanska • New Prescott Street Pumping Station • $12M Value • CM: O’Connor • Terminal B Garage Renovations • $55M Value • CM: Consigli Projects Completed or Ongoing Since Legislative Change: • Economy Parking Deck • $17M Value • CM: Turner Construction • Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRAC) • $250M Value • CM: TBD • New Bus Maintenance Facility • $20M Value • CM: TBD • Rehabilitation of Aircraft Hangars • $18M Value • CM: TBD

13. CM Selection Process • Task 0: Retain a Qualified Designer that has Good Experience in CM at Risk Project Implementation • Task 1: Retain a Qualified CM Owner Representative (either from a Consultant/Designer Team or Independent CM) • Task 2: Pre-qualify CM at Risk Teams • Experience with similar work • Project team members and management • Safety records including OSHA violations and not just the EMR • Financial stability • Etc. • Task 3: Issue RFP to Short-listed CM at Risk Teams • 20% - 30% preliminary design documents • Pre-construction contract form • Master construction agreement form • General provisions • Special provisions

14. RFP Requested Information • Technical Proposal • Scope of pre-construction services • Critical path schedule • Assumption and qualifications • Description of technical challenges • Value engineering ideas and schedule enhancements • Routine information: surety letter, prevailing wages, etc.

15. Price Proposal • Preconstruction Phase (hours X rate X multiplier) • General Condition: (Project Management Staffing) • General Requirement: Direct Cost from Document Reproduction, Insurance and Bonds, to Quality Control and Lab Fees, Etc. • Construction Contingencies • Fee • “Good Faith Estimate” (GFE) regarding Construction Cost • Project Duration Cash Flow and General Conditions Spending Charts

16. Proposal Evaluation • Technical Proposal • Project understanding • Technical challenges and proposed solution • Assumption and qualification • Value engineering ideas • Etc. • Price Proposal • Mulitiplier • Personnel • Fee • Breakdown of GFE • Comparison between proposals

17. Case Study – Massport Terminal B Garage CM at Risk Project The Project Involves: • Drainage Improvements • Structural Strengthening • Lighting Replacement • Upper and Lower Roadway • Replacement • Waterproofing • Installation of Photovoltaics • Expansion Joint Replacement • Modernization of Elevator Lobbies

18. Process • Advertised for CM Qualifications • Review of Nine Qualification Packages led to Six Companies being Shortlisted • Requested Technical Proposals and GFE from Shortlisted Companies • Selected Three Firms to be Interviewed based on Proposals and GFE • Selected Consigli Construction Company Based on Interviews and Evaluation of Proposals

19. Owner Benefits of CM Selection Process • Gained Insight to Possible Areas of Conflict within the Project • Evaluated Potential Solutions to Identified Conflicts • Confirmed Reasonableness of Preliminary Cost Estimates ($52 million) • Identified Areas where Additional Field Investigation/Field Mock-up would be Useful • Team Approach helped to Minimize Owner Exposure for Unknown Conditions by Establishing Contingency Costs (Signage, Bollard Relocation, Asphalt Escalation)

20. TERMINAL B - CM PHASE II PROPOSALS - CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY *Skanska % fee and written in fee differed by approx. $4,000

21. TERMINAL B - CM PHASE II PROPOSALS - CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARYGOOD FAITH CONSTRUCTION COST

22. Successes of CM at Risk for Terminal B Garage Project • Through Outreach to Subcontractors, Received Favorable Pricing on Many Items (Electrical, PV, Site Work) • Preliminary Demolition of CMU Block Walls allowed Subcontractors to Examine the Physical Conditions Prior to Bidding • Mock-up of LED Lighting Units allowed for Full Evaluation of Various Systems prior to Finalizing Specifications • Savings on Pricing (approximately $6.5 M) allowed for Flexibility to Double the Number of Solar Trees

23. Successes of CM at Risk for Terminal B Garage Project (cont’d) • Items in Second Phase of the Project advanced to the First Phase thereby avoiding Re-work in the Same Area • Collaboration between Designer and CM helped to Improve Specifications for Better Scope Definition Between Disciplines • Collaborative Approach helped Develop Scheduling, Phasing and Code Solutions that were Responsive to Field Conditions and Owner/Passenger Needs

24. Final Note Train your Internal Staff, Project Managers, in Construction Management and Have them Certified. “C.C.M.”