ST Croix Cost Est Review Report Final - 1 PDF

St.
Croix River Crossing

Cost Estimate Review
February 2006
Prepared by
Prepared for
St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review
Table of Contents
Page
Section I
COST ESTIMATE REVIEW SUMMARY
Section II
COST ESTIMATE REVIEW PROCESS
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
PROJECT BACKGROUND
OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW
REVIEW TEAM
REVIEW CLARIFICATIONS / QUALIFICATIONS
METHODOLOGY
Section III FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
13
RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE ADJUSTMENTS

REVIEW PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT
3.2.1
2004 Total Project Cost Estimate
3.2.2
2010 Total Project Cost Estimate
3.2.3
2004 Extradosed River Bridge Cost Estimate
REVIEW FINDINGS
REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
Section IV DETAILED PROJECT REVIEW /

PROBABILITY ANALYSIS
20
4.1
PART 1 TH 5 to Osgood (Minnesota Roadway)

4.1.1 Roadway (LWD Method) incl. Erosion Control
4.1.2 Loop Trail
4.1.3 Retaining Walls (modular block)
4.1.4 Signals
4.1.5 Risk
4.1.6 Aesthetics
4.1.7 Right-of-Way
4.2
PART 2 Minnesota Approach (Osgood - River Bridge) 28

4.2.2 Bridge Beach Road over TH 36
4.2.3 Bridge Treatment Plant Access Road
4.2.4 TH 36 Bridges
4.2.5 Existing Bridge Removals
2
22

(continued)
4.2.6 Loop Trail
4.2.7 Approach Panels
4.2.8 Retaining Walls (Cast-In-Place)
4.2.9 Contaminated Soils Cleanup Costs
4.2.10 Signals
4.2.11 Risk: All elements except Bridge
4.2.12 Risk: Bridge
4.2.13 Aesthetics, incl. Lift Bridge Modifications
4.2.14 Right-of-Way
4.2.15 Railroad Agreement Cost
4.2.16 Major Utility Relocation Cost
Page
4.3
PART 3 Wisconsin Approach

(St. Croix River Bridge to East Project Terminus)
4.3.2 Bridge STH 35 and CTH E over STH 64
4.3.3 Bridge County Road E over STH 64
4.3.4 Loop Trail
4.3.5 Approach Panels
4.3.6 Retaining Walls (Cast-In-Place)
4.3.7 Signals/Roundabouts
4.3.8 Risk
4.3.9 Aesthetics
4.3.10 Right-of-Way
39
4.4
PART 4 Extradosed St. Croix River Bridge

4.4.1 Risk: River Bridge
4.4.2 Aesthetics
4.4.3 Anti-Ice Bridge Deck Equipment
4.4.4 Right-of-Way
46
4.5
Other Project Elements

4.5.1 Mitigation (fixed)
4.5.2 Mitigation (variable)
4.5.3 Project Development/Design/Engineering /CEI
4.5.4 Inflation
4.5.5 Construction Contingency
4.5.6 Management Reserve
4.5.7 Project Delivery Method
54
Appendices:
Page
Appendix A
Estimate Summary Spreadsheets
62
Appendix B
Estimate Review Summary Presentation
64
Appendix C
Cost Estimate Review Agenda
86
Appendix D
Cost Estimate Review Work Plan
88
Appendix E
Cost Estimate Review Attendees

Daily Sign-in Sheets
92
Section I - Cost Estimate Review Summary

A project review team (Team) met in Minnesota to review the current estimated cost of construction
for the St. Croix River Bridge, evaluate cost risks and probabilities associated with the project, and
provide recommendations on reporting the estimated costs based on the results of the review.
REVIEW FINDINGS:
The findings of the Review are summarized as follows:
It was confirmed that the project estimate is consistent with the current stage of project
development
The river bridge extradosed type, aesthetics, configuration and constructability are major
contributors to the risk associated with the project costs.
Some specific scope was not accounted for the in the base estimate
Estimate did not account for inflation to the projects estimated mid-point of expenditure
Estimate did not account for Construction Contingencies that may be required due to unforeseen
conditions, changes in cost or time, etc.
Estimate did not account for other potential risk
Some enhanced components to the MnDOT Length, Width and Depth (LWD) conceptual cost
estimating system were recommended as follows:
o The selection of multipliers should be documented
o The LWD Process has limitations where major bridges are a part of the project and as such
should account for these conditions
RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE ADJUSTMENTS:

The Team recommended the following changes to the project estimate based on the Review:
The above table demonstrates that the Team considered an additional $68 Million should be
added to the 2004 cost estimate for the project. This additional amount is made up of $22
million of base costs for scope not included and $46 million of additional risk the Team
considered should be included in the estimate at this time. The 2010 Programming estimate
includes escalation to 2010, plus Construction Contingency and Management Reserve that the
Team recommended to be added to the Programming estimate.
5
REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Team presented the following recommendations at the completion of the Review:
The proposed extradosed bridge for the river spans has a relatively high cost risk. This risk
should be managed through:
o Cost effective design decisions on the river bridge (aesthetics, configuration)
o Focus on the constructability of the river bridge
o Contractor involvement / options
The Cost Estimate should be increased to account for the additional known scope not accounted
for, the risks identified, inflation to mid-point of expenditure, and the construction contingencies.
The Team recommended that a cost estimate range be utilized when publishing estimated costs
for the project in lieu of a fixed cost estimate.
The Team provided the following cost estimate conclusions:
Description
Current Project
Estimate
2004 Base
2010 Programming
Team Recommended
Total Project
Estimate (with risk)
$373 M
$484 M
$305 M
Delta (Team
Recommendation
Current Estimate)
$68 M
2004 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT

The probability analysis for the Base Estimate in 2004 resulted in the following curve:
Total
Project
Estimate
Review 2004
with Risk ~
$373 M
10% Probability
90% Probability
Estimate Review without Risk = $317 M

This curve demonstrates the summary of the probabilities determined by the Team based on each of
the individual project components. It demonstrates that if the project was bid today, the Team
considers that there is a 10% probability the bid would be below $299 million, an 80% probability
that the bid would be between $299 million and $334 million, and a 10% probability that the bid
6

would be above $334 million. Also noted in the bottom of the chart is the Teams recommended
Estimate Review without risk of $317 million. The Teams recommended Estimate including risk of
$373 million (right of the chart) demonstrates that the Team considered there is sufficient
contingency to cover the current project risks.
2010 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT

The probability analysis for the Base Estimate in 2010 resulted in the following curve:
60%
Probability
from $400 to
$430 M
10% Probability
Current
Estimate
= $484M
90% Probability
2010 Estimate Review without Risk = $412M

This curve demonstrates the summary of the probabilities determined by the Team for each of the
project components, including inflation, construction contingency and management reserve. It
demonstrates the Team considers that there is a 10% probability the bid would be below $410
million, an 80% probability that the bid would be between $410 million and $453 million, and a
10% probability that the bid would be above $453 million. Also noted on the chart are the Teams
recommended Estimate Review without risk of $412 million (bottom of the chart) and the Teams
recommended Estimate including risk of $484 million (the 100% mark to the right of the chart).
The recommended Range of the current Cost Estimate Probability in the mid-80% certainty level is
noted as follows:
Estimate Range in the mid
Total Project Estimate
Estimate
80% probability (with risk)
(with risk)
2004 Base
$299 M to $334 M
$373 M
2010 Programming
$410 M to $453 M
$484 M
Based on these summary conclusions the Team recommends that the project team continue to
finalize the extradosed bridge design concept using cost effective design decisions in the process.
This will result in further defining the project costs and possibly reducing the amount of cost risk to
be included in future cost estimates.
7
St. Croix River Crossing

Project Description:
Schedule:
New crossing of the St. Croix

river between Minnesota and
Wisconsin
Improvements on both
Minnesota and Wisconsin
sides of the crossing
New recreation loop created
with existing Lift Bridge
Construction Range 2009 2014

(3 to 6 years for construction, dependent upon
project funding)
Current
Estimate
= $484M
Project Benefits:
Improved traffic flow between

Wisconsin and Minnesota over
the St. Croix river
Replacement of aging existing
bridge structure
Recreation loop a benefit to
communities
Minimal environmental impact
Cost of extradosed bridge type

Complexity of cast-in-place
construction
Constructability of final bridge
concept
Inflation concerns
Resource availability at time of
construction (equipment /
labor)
Level of
Project Design:
90% Probability
Estimate Review without Risk = $412M
Project Cost Range (2010 Programming):
Project Risks:
10% Probability
Low
10% Probability ~ $410 Million

90% Probability ~ $453 Million
Current 2010 recommended programming ~
$484 million (based on risks of inflation and
final bridge design)
Financial Assumptions:
Inflation estimate of 3% per year
Contingencies based on conceptual nature of
plans
Medium
High
Section II Cost Estimate Review Process

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The St. Croix River Crossing Project includes reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH 36) in
Minnesota, a new river crossing, and new State Trunk Highway (STH) 64 construction in
Wisconsin. The total length of this construction/reconstruction is approximately 6.0 miles. The new
four lane river bridge crossing will cross the river at the present location of the Highway 36 /
Highway 95 Interchange, crossing the river, and landing in Wisconsin, approximately 6,450 feet
south of the existing Lift Bridge (refer to Project Location map below). The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Major Projects Unit assembled a Project Review Team (Team) consisting
of FHWA, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Wisconsin Department of
Transportation (WisDOT) and technical experts to review the cost estimates on the St. Croix River
Crossing project. This Team met at the MnDOT Training Facility in Arden Hills, Minnesota, from
August 8 - 12, 2005, to perform the review. This document summarizes and reports the results of
this cost estimate review.
2.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW:

The objective of this review was to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the current total cost
estimate to complete the St. Croix River Crossing project and to develop a probability range for the
cost estimate that represents the level of uncertainty remaining at the projects current stage of
design. The results of this probability analysis could then be used to determine if the
risk/contingency factors in the estimate are reasonable based on the results of the probability.
2.3 REVIEW TEAM:

The project estimate review team (Team) was developed with the intent of having individuals with a
strong knowledge of the project and/or of major project work and expertise in specific disciplines of
the project, such as bridge structures, roadway, right-of-way acquisition, cost consulting, etc. This
core Team stayed together throughout the week. In addition, project team members with specific
expertise on various disciplines briefed the Team on the projects cost estimate development process
for their respective disciplines. The Team was then able to interview the discipline presenters to
further understand and clarify the development of the project cost estimate quantities, unit prices,
assumptions, opportunities and risks. The Team was comprised of the following members:
FHWA
MnDOT
WisDOT, and
Consultant (PBS&J) staff
Appendix E includes a complete list of all the attendees as well as the Work Shop Sign-In sheets.
2.4 REVIEW CLARIFICATIONS / QUALIFICATIONS

Following are the basis, assumptions and qualifications of the Cost Estimate Review:
Detailed verification of quantities and unit prices was not performed

Independent cost estimates were not developed
Review focused only on cost items with major impacts to cost
Detailed review of project schedule was not performed
2.5 METHODOLOGY:
The Cost Estimate Review methodology was developed to ensure team members understood the
project scope and the associated current cost estimate (dated August 2005) of the Preferred
Alternative Package (roadway approaches; bridges - river crossing, inland, and lift bridge; and,
mitigation). A detailed Cost Estimate Review Agenda and Work Plan are included in Appendices C
and D.
The Team initially reviewed the project cost estimate at a summary level, and developed a list of
items that required further clarifications during the review of the more detailed breakdown of the
current cost estimate. A site visit of the project was performed on the evening of the second day of
the review. This enabled the consultant Team members to get a better understanding of the site
conditions on both sides of the river and the constructability issues.
10

Following the initial summary review of the overall project cost, the Team reviewed the various
project components in more detail. A Structures Focus Group was established comprising of
technical members specializing in Bridge Structures. This Focus Group had a separate work session
to focus on the elements of the various bridge structures particularly focusing on the bridge structure
for the crossing and the extradosed main spans. The Focus Group discussed issues with significant
cost impact such as constructability, design elements, availability of resources such as concrete,
labor and equipment, etc. The Focus Group then presented their findings to the remainder of the
Team.
All categories of costs in the project estimate were reviewed during this time frame, including nonconstruction costs such as right-of-way, preliminary engineering, construction management, inflation
and contingency. Based on the details of each project element, the Team assessed if the estimated
costs adequately reflected the current scope and market conditions. At the conclusion of this
component review, the Team had arrived at recommended adjustments to the current estimate.
A third phase of the review was the discussion on potential cost related risks and opportunities with
each of the project elements. A computer generated probability analysis was then conducted based
on input from the entire Team.
The Teams objective during the review was not to develop independent cost estimates, but to
perform a scope review and a summary cost estimate review, assess risks and assign contingencies,
and provide recommendations on possible modifications to the cost estimates.
The Team reached a general consensus at the conclusion of the review and conducted a draft
presentation to FHWA, MnDOT and WisDOT senior level management officials summarizing the
review findings (Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the Presentation note that the fixed mitigation
costs in the presentation are based on the initial workshop data and have not been updated in the
presentation).
The following aspects were covered in the scope of the review of the Preferred Alternative Cost
Estimate:
An understanding of the Minnesota DOT Metro Length, Width, and Depth (LWD) estimating
process of standardized cost estimates for Roadway elements (refer to section below)
Basis, Assumptions and Process in the development of the cost estimate
Scope included in the Preferred Alternative Package cost estimate
Understanding of the scope NOT accounted for in the current cost estimate
Technical Disciplines input (Roadway, Structures, ROW, Mitigation, etc.)
Basis of quantities and unit costs
Allowances, Mark-ups (contractor, design, etc.), and Contingencies
Validity of present day costs for Preferred Alternative Package
Review other similar bridge types Example of Connecticut Bridge
Market Conditions, Price Fluctuations
Identification and accounting for Risks and Opportunities
Overview of Project Schedules and Inflation analysis
Establishment of Estimated Total Future costs
11

Utilizing this methodology, the Team identified opportunities and risks within the cost estimate,
established recommended current day values for the Preferred Alternative Package based on
recommended adjustments to the current cost estimate, evaluated the impact of inflation and
contingencies for changes during construction, and arrived at anticipated total project costs.
MnDOT Metro Length, Width and Depth (LWD) Estimating System:
Pursuant to the summary level review of the overall cost estimate, the MnDOT estimating staff
presented to the Team the Minnesota DOT Length, Width and Depth (LWD) estimating system that
was utilized to establish major elements of the cost estimates.
The roadway elements of this cost estimate were primarily developed utilizing the MnDOT Length,
Width and Depth (LWD) standardized system of cost estimating. The LWD system as pertaining to
this project included the following factors and approach:
LWD multiplier is based on previously awarded bid costs history (low accepted bids only)
LWD multiplier is arrived at based on analyzing recent similar projects, specific conditions
of the project being estimated, and estimators judgment.
LWD includes 11 Roadway elements and other project elements
Railroad relocation costs not included in current estimate. Possible $4-$5 M
Public relations costs not included in the current estimate.
Bridge current cost estimates include little to no risk for the bridge structures
Roadway includes 10% scope risk
Unknown contamination with existing fertilizer terra terminal building included
Erosion control costs need to be higher in estimate based on current requirements
Water Quality cost impacts could be higher
Aesthetics costs are limited to budgets based on cost participating percentages
Utility relocation costs include Sanitary Sewer relocation due to depression in road
Higher fill quantity on the Minnesota side and at grade construction largely in Wisconsin
No muck anticipated on the Project
Landscaping costs are included in Visual Quality costs
No noise walls requirement anticipated for the Project
$200,000 included for signalization per signalized intersection (possibility of round-abouts
was noted, but costs would be similar)
LWD Multipliers vary from project to project based on location, complexity, scope and other
factors. For example the multiplier is $80,000 for the Wisconsin scope, $90,000 for
Minnesota Seg. I and $112,000 for the Minnesota Approach Spans.
LWD Factor accounts for all paved areas including concrete and bituminous areas
The above review of the LWD factors and approach and the current estimate was very beneficial to
the Team in preparing a strategy to assess the risks associated with the project and to complete the
Review.
The following sections describe the findings, recommendations, and the detailed probability analysis
that was performed in this review.
12
Section III Findings and Recommendations

3.1 RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE ADJUSTMENTS:
At the beginning of the study, the Team reviewed a current project estimate of $305 million in 2004
dollars. The following additional known scope items were identified but not included in the above
cost estimate.
ADDITIONAL COST DUE TO KNOWN SCOPE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR:
The major known scope items that were not included in the Base Estimate are as follows:
Railroad Agreement
Erosion Control and High Performance Pavement
Anti-Ice Bridge Deck Equipment
Major Utility Relocation Cost
Adjusted Wisc. STH 35 Bridge cost per SF
Existing Bridge Removals
Contaminated Soil Removal
Retaining Walls revised estimate
Revised Fixed Mitigation
Reduction in calculations for Aesthetics revised estimate
TOTAL KNOWN SCOPE ADDITION CHANGE
~
$ 6.9
$ 5.4
$ 3.8
$ 3.0
$ 0.7
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$5.3
$-4.2
$22 M
In addition, the Team analyzed the risks associated with several elements of the cost estimate and
identified the following additional costs to account for those risks.
ADDITIONAL COST DUE TO IDENTIFIED RISKS:

The major elements making up the $46 million dollar variance in the Risk Estimate are as follows:
Extradosed Bridge Risk (30%)
Minn. Approach Spans to River Bridge Risk (20%)
Right-of-Way Risk
o Minnesota ROW (10%)
o Wisconsin ROW (50%)
Associated Engineering/CEI (25%)
TOTAL RISK IMPACT CHANGE
$ 30
$ 4
$ 1
$ 2
$ 9
$ 46 M
Thus the combined assessment of the Team added approximately $68 million dollars ($22 million
due to additional scope on the base costs and $46 million in risk contingencies) to the 2004 Project
Cost Estimate, increasing it from a $305 million dollar base to a $373 million dollar base, which
amounts to an increase of approximately 22%.
13

The review of the estimate resulted in the following recommendations:
Add $22 million due to known scope not previously accounted for
Add $46 million in risk based on a risk assessment the Team performed on the current estimate
of the project
Recommended 2004 Total Project Costs of $373 million including the above two additions
(Refer to Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of the $373 Million cost estimate)
Apply a 3% yearly Inflation rate to escalate the 2004 estimate to the projected estimated
midpoint of expenditures of 2010
Add 7.5% Construction Contingency (allowance for changes during construction)
Add 1% Management Reserve (allowance for third party changes during construction)
Recommended 2010 Total Project Costs of $484 million based on the above changes
Based on the Review of the project cost estimate, the Team recommended the following changes to
the project estimate:
Following the results of the estimate review and based on the revised cost estimate, the Team then
analyzed the probabilities with the estimate values to help determine an estimate range. The
following pages describe the probability analysis for the overall 2004 and 2010 project cost
estimates as well as the 2004 estimate of the extradosed bridge structure. Section IV describes in
detail the procedures and findings of the probability analysis for all other line items in the cost
estimate.
14
3.2 REVIEW PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT:

The following sections describe the probability assessment analysis for the 2004, 2010 and the
Extradosed Bridge cost estimates.
3.2.1 2004 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW:

The Team studied the probability assessment for the 2004 estimate. The probability analysis for the
Base Estimate in 2004 resulted in the following curve:
Total
Project
Estimate
Review 2004
with Risk ~
$373 M
10% Probability
90% Probability

project components. It demonstrates that if the project was bid today, the Team considers that there
is a 10% probability the bid would be below $299 million, an 80% probability that the bid would be
between $299 million and $334 million, and a 10% probability that the bid would be above $334
million. Also noted in the bottom of the chart is the Teams recommended Estimate Review without
risk of $317 million. The Teams recommended Estimate including risk of $373 million (right of the
chart) demonstrates that the Team considered there is sufficient contingency to cover the current
project risks.
The Estimate Review (without risk) identifies the need for risk to be included in the published
estimate for the project. This curve also provides information to set an estimated range for the
project costs, instead of a fixed amount.
15
3.2.2. 2010 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW:

The probability analysis for the Total Project Estimate in 2010 resulted in the following curve:
Total
Project
Estimate
Review 2010
with Risk ~
$484 M
10% Probability
90% Probability

project components, including inflation, construction contingency and management reserve. It
demonstrates the Team considers that there is a 10% probability the bid would be below $410
million, an 80% probability that the bid would be between $410 million and $453 million, and a
10% probability that the bid would be above $453 million. Also noted on the chart are the Teams
recommended Estimate Review without risk of $412 million (bottom of the chart) and the Teams
recommended Estimate including risk of $484 million (the 100% mark to the right of the chart).
The Estimate Review (without risk) demonstrates the need for risk to be included in the published
estimate for the project, as the number without risk is close to the 10% probability level range that a
bid would be below the Estimate Review Without Risk. The above curve also provides a range of
estimated costs for planning purposes that can be utilized instead of a fixed estimate value.
16
3.2.3 EXTRADOSED RIVER BRIDGE COST ESTIMATE REVIEW (2004):

The probability analysis for the Extradosed River Bridge Spans resulted in the following curve:
Total ED
River Bridge
Span 2004
Estimate ~
$135 M
10% Probability
90% Probability
Estimate Review Base without Risk = $105 M

The above curve demonstrates a summary of the probabilities determined by the Team for Part 4
of the project estimate, which includes the main span of the Extradosed River Bridge. It
demonstrates that if Part 4 of the project was bid today, the Team considers that there is a 10%
probability the bid would be below $92 million, an 80% probability that the bid would be between
$92 million and $118 million, and a 10% probability that the bid would be above $118 million. Also
noted on the chart are the Teams recommended Estimate Review Base without risk of $105 million
(bottom of the chart) and the Teams recommended 2004 Estimate including risk of $135 million (to
the right side of the chart).
This curve demonstrates the Teams concern with the current risk on the River Crossing portion of
the project, where design decisions, resource costs and constraints, constructability and
environmental factors could increase the bids on this portion of the project. The Team anticipates
that as design progresses, a more detailed cost estimate can be determined and the risk amount
should decrease.
17
3.3 REVIEW FINDINGS:

The findings of the Review are summarized as follows:
It was confirmed that the project estimate is consistent with the current stage of project
development
The river bridge extradosed type, aesthetics, configuration and constructability are major
contributors to the risk associated with the project costs.
Some specific scope was not accounted for the in the base estimate
Estimate did not account for inflation to the projects estimated mid-point of expenditure
Estimate did not account for Construction Contingencies that may be required due to
unforeseen conditions, changes in cost or time, etc.
Estimate did not account for other potential risk
Some enhanced components to the MnDOT Length, Width and Depth (LWD) conceptual
cost estimating system were recommended as follows:
o The selection of multipliers should be documented
o The LWD Process has limitations where major bridges are a part of the project and as
such should account for these conditions
3.4 REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Team presented the following recommendations at the completion of the Review:
The proposed extradosed bridge for the river spans has a relatively high cost risk. The risk
should be managed through:
o Cost effective design decisions on the river bridge (aesthetics, configuration)
o Focus on the constructability of the river bridge
o Contractor involvement / options
The Cost Estimate should be increased to account for the additional known scope not
accounted for, the risks identified, inflation to mid-point of expenditure, and the construction
contingencies.
The Team recommended that a cost estimate range be utilized when publishing estimated
costs for the project in lieu of a fixed cost estimate
The recommended Range of the current Cost Estimate Probability in the mid-80% certainty level is
noted as follows:
Estimate
2004 Base
2010 Programming
Estimate Range in the mid

80% probability (with risk)
$299 M to $334 M
$410 M to $453 M
Total Project Estimate

(with risk)
$373 M
$484 M
Based on these summary conclusions the Team recommends that the project team continue to
finalize the extradosed bridge design concept using cost effective design decisions in the process.
This will result in further defining the project costs and possibly reducing the amount of cost risk to
be included in future cost estimates.
18
Due to the recent national disasters related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, there is wide
spread speculation that the construction industry will be impacted with increasing prices, shortage of
material, labor and equipment and also increasing bonding and insurance costs. It is recommended
that for this project, the construction market be closely monitored to capture any such impacts as
they relate to the project budget. In addition, due to the unique nature of the proposed extradosed
bridge, since the New Haven Harbor Crossing Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Q-Bridge) is very
similar in nature to the proposed bridge; the eventual bid costs of the Q-Bridge (after letting/award)
should be utilized to update the proposed budgets for the St. Croix River Crossing project.
19

Utilizing a probability analysis software program (Crystal Ball), the Team was able to identify a
probability curve for each element of the estimate. The curve for each element is based on the
probability that the element, if bid today, could be bid in a range that varies from a reasonable low
value to a reasonable high value, with the highest probability value being at the peak of the
probability curve. A sample probability curve is as follows:
The preceding sample probability chart demonstrates that the selector of this curve considered
that the highest probability for a bid amount for this item is in the range of $16,000,000 to
$17,000,000 (this highest range is typically the current cost estimate for the item). The selector
also considers that there is a chance the low bid could come in quite low (see minimal range of
probability between $6,000,000 and $12,000,000), but a lower possibility that a high bid would
be significantly high (see highest range is close to $20,000,000). Probability curves like this one
are typically selected based on the risks and opportunities identified with each item. In this case,
the Team selecting the probability curve had confidence that a bid would be submitted for the
item in the current estimate range of $16 million to $17 million, and that it was more likely that a
lower bid would be received, demonstrating the Teams confidence that there were good
opportunities for a lower bid, and there were no risks identified that would result in a
significantly higher bid than the current cost estimate.
Once the probability curves are selected, the software program generates random numbers based
on the curve (if run thousands of times the results would closely approximate the curve). These
random numbers are then added at bottom line forecast totals, and a forecast curve is then
generated creating a combined probability curve for the sub-total and totals of a group of
numbers.
20

During the Review, the Team examined the cost elements making up the preferred alternative.
Each of the elements were reviewed, with sufficient time allowed for all team members to
present scope information, ask questions and discuss issues. The risks and opportunities were
then analyzed element-by-element and recommended cost elements were modified and a
contingency amount was assigned for each element within the Project. Following the completion
of this analysis, a recommended project cost was calculated utilizing the results of this review.
The probability curves generated for each of the line items in the estimate are shown in the
following sections. The type of curve and the reasoning for the selection of each curve is
provided at the bottom of each curve. These sections also provide the detail on the Teams
analysis and conclusions related to each of these items broken down by the elements in the
Project Estimate.
21
4.1 TH 5 to Osgood (Part 1 of 4)

Scope of Part 1: In Minnesota, TH 36, the TH 36 frontage roads, and cross streets (Oakgreen
Avenue/Greeley Street and Osgood Avenue) will be reconstructed 1,050 feet from east of
Washington/Norell Avenues to Osgood Avenue. The intersections of TH 36 and local streets
will remain as at-grade intersections. No improvements will be constructed at Norell
Avenue/Washington Avenue. Frontage roads at Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley Street will be pulled
back away from TH 36; frontage roads at Osgood Avenue will remain in place.
Note: Aesthetics calculation in the above table excludes the Loop Trail costs
Summary Probability Curve for Part 1 (TH 5 to Osgood):
2004 Estimate
10% Probability
90% Probability
Current 2004 Estimate with Risks ~ $26 M
22
Probability Curve Assumptions for the elements of Part 1 (TH 5 to

Osgood):
4.1.1
Roadway (LWD Method) including Erosion Control (5%)
A review of the roadway elements for this section of the project showed that the LWD multiplier
utilized appeared to be reasonable for the scope, noting that this portion would have a higher fill
quantity than the Wisconsin approach. An additional 5% was added to this item for the
contractors costs to meet environmental regulations such as erosion control requirements. An
additional 1.25% was also added to the multiplier to cover the costs of high performance
pavement. Based on the MnDOT history on the price per square foot, the $94,500 utilized is
considered conservative for this work.
Curve: Minimum Extreme Distribution - Lower risk of bid greatly exceeding estimate. Bid
could fall somewhat below the estimate as a result of the conservatively high unit price utilized
as a multiplier in the LWD system.
23
4.1.2
Loop Trail
A review of the trail elements showed that the Team felt the $80,000 per mile unit price was
reasonable for this work effort. The Team did not see any significant risk in this item.
Curve: Students t distribution - Low probability of bid being significantly higher or lower
than estimate for the trail.
4.1.3
Retaining Walls (Modular Brick)
The modular brick retaining walls unit price was based on similar walls. The $20 per square foot
was considered reasonable by the team.
Curve: Normal distribution - Medium risk bid could fall higher or lower than estimate
24
4.1.4
Signals
Signal costs were estimated at $200,000 per intersection based on similar recent projects. The
Team considered this as a reasonable estimate that had relatively low cost risk.
Curve: Students t distribution - Low risk on bid being significantly higher or lower than
estimate.
4.1.5
Risk (10%)
The MnDOT LWD system estimate had included a risk factor of 10% for this Part I of the
Project. Based on the Teams assessment of risk, the 10% factor was considered a reasonable
amount for this scope of work.
25
4.1.6
Aesthetics (7.5%)
The cost for aesthetic enhancements has been included in the estimate and capped at a mitigation
package negotiation maximum level of 7.5% of the construction costs. As the aesthetics become
further defined, it will be required to ensure that the costs will be within the 7.5% limit.
could fall somewhat below the estimate as a result of the conservatively high unit price
26
4.1.7
Right of Way
The review of right-of-way cost estimates demonstrated that the parcels have been identified and
the MnDOT right-of-way staff had estimated all of the costs considered to be associated with
securing the right-of-way for the project. The Review Team agreed to add an additional 10%
contingency on the estimates for this section of the Project.
Curve: Gamma Distribution - Probability is high that costs will exceed the estimate, while
considered low that prices will fall below the estimate. Increasing land and housing prices have
been considered in this probability.
27
4.2 Minnesota Approach (Part 2 of 4) (Osgood to

River Bridge)
Scope of Part 2: East of Osgood Avenue, TH 36 will be reconstructed and a new TH 36/95
diamond interchange will be constructed along with corresponding improvements to TH 95.
Note: Aesthetics calculation in the above table excludes the bridges and trail costs
Summary Probability Curve for Part 2 (Minnesota Approach):
2004 Estimate
10% Probability
90% Probability
Current 2004 Estimate with Risk ~ $82 M

28
Probability Curve Assumptions for the elements of Part 2

(Minnesota Approach):
4.2.1
Roadway (LWD Method) includes Erosion Control (5%)
A review of the roadway elements for this section of the project showed that the LWD multiplier
utilized appeared to be reasonable for the scope, noting that this portion would also have a higher
fill quantity than the Wisconsin approach. This section included an interchange and ramps that
made the estimate higher on a cost per square foot basis. An additional 5% was added to this
item for the contractors costs to meet environmental regulations such as erosion control
requirements. An additional 1.25% was also added to the multiplier to cover the costs of high
performance pavement. Based on the MnDOT history on the price per square foot, the $117,600
utilized is considered conservatively high for this work.
Curve: Minimum Extreme Distribution - Lower probability of bid greatly exceeding

estimate. Bid could fall somewhat below the estimate as a result of the conservatively high unit
price utilized in the LWD multiplier.
29
4.2.2
Bridge Beach Road over TH 36
The estimated bridge cost, for an assumed curved steel structure of $125 per square foot for
Beach Road over Trunk Highway (TH) 36 was discussed by the bridge structure focus group and
found to be reasonable. The bid results from previous projects and current industry knowledge
were utilized to arrive at this value.
Curve: Maximum Extreme Distribution - The Team considered a high probability of the bid
exceeding the estimate for this bridge. Low probability of the bid coming in significantly below
the estimate.
30
4.2.3
Bridge Treatment Plant Access Rd
The estimated cost of $130 per square foot for the bridge at the Treatment Plant Access Road
was discussed by the bridge structure focus group and found to be reasonable. The concept of a
steel beam structure was the basis for the unit price. The bid results from previous projects and
current industry knowledge were utilized to arrive at this value.
Curve: Maximum Extreme Distribution - The Team considered a high probability of bid
exceeding estimate for this bridge, and a low probability of the bid coming in significantly below
the estimate.
31
4.2.4
TH 36 Bridges
The estimated cost of $180 per square foot for the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 Bridges was
discussed by the bridge structure focus group and found to be reasonable. Although the final
concept for these bridges has not been finalized, they will be the approach spans to the
extradosed main spans of the River Bridge. These approach spans will be designed to fit
functionally and aesthetically with the main spans. They will also be constructed in a sensitive
environmental area, thus increasing the cost of construction. The Teams knowledge of the area
and of recent projects was utilized in arriving at this price. The Team did see significant cost
risk with this project element due to environmental considerations and design complexity.
Curve: Maximum Extreme Distribution - High probability of bid exceeding estimate. Low
probability of the bid coming in significantly below the estimate.
4.2.5
Existing Bridge Removals
The removal of two existing bridges will be required during the construction of this part of the
Project. The MnDOT Team member provided an estimate of $100,000 per bridge, and the Team
considered that this is a reasonable estimate for this scope of work.
Curve: Logistic Distribution- Reasonable probability that the bid will fall within the range of
the estimate for the existing bridge removals.
32
4.2.6
Loop Trail
A review of the Loop Trail elements showed that the Team felt the $80,000 per mile unit price
was reasonable for this work effort. The Team did not see any significant risk in this item.
Curve: Normal Distribution- Average probability that the bid will fall within the range of the
estimate with equal chance of being above or below the estimate.
4.2.7
Approach Panels
Bridge approach panels were estimated based on recent MnDOT pricing. The bid results from
previous projects were utilized to arrive at this value. The Team considered the price of $20,000
per panel as a reasonable current estimate for this work.
Curve: Normal Distribution - Average probability that the bid will fall within the range of the
33
4.2.8
Retaining Walls (Cast-in-place)
A relative low quantity of cast-in-place (CIP) retaining walls has been estimated for this part of
the Project. The Team agreed with the MnDOT estimate of $75 per square foot of wall area as a
reasonable price for this element.
4.2.9
Contaminated Soils Cleanup Costs
An allowance of $200,000 was utilized for contaminated soils cleanup. This is based on those
areas that have been identified where it is likely that this could occur. The environmental team
members knowledge of the corridor provided the impression to the Team that this was a
reasonable allowance without a huge risk.
34
4.2.10
Signals
Team considered this as a reasonable estimate that had relatively low cost risk.
Curve: Students t distribution - Low probability on bid being significantly higher or lower
than estimate.
4.2.11
Risk: All elements except Bridge (10%)
The MnDOT LWD system estimate had included a risk factor of 10% for this Part 2 of the
Project. Based on the Teams assessment of risk, the 10% was considered a reasonable amount
for this scope of work, excluding the bridge approach spans to the main span of the River Bridge.
The Team considered that the LWD multiplier for this item was conservatively high.
4.2.12
Risk: Bridge (20%)
The risk on the approach spans to the extradosed main span was analyzed separately by the
structural focus group assembled during the Review. The Team concluded that once the design
is further formalized, the risk could possibly be reduced. The risk was arrived at by analyzing
the elements of the bridge structure and coming up with a composite risk as shown in the
following table:
CATEGORY
Deck
Cables
Pylons / Piers
Foundations
Other / Miscellaneous
Total
a). Percentage of
Construction Cost
65%
N/A
10%
20%
5%
b). Risk /
c). = a x b; Composite
Contingency
Risk Factor
25%
16.3%
0.0%
50%
5.0%
10%
2.0%
20%
1.0%
100%
24.3%
35

Based on the calculated risk at 24.3%, the Team elected to utilize a 20% contingency at this time
for the estimate. Design decisions made in the near future on the extradosed main spans will
somewhat determine what the final risk factor will be on these approach spans. This bridge
consists of 6 extradosed spans plus 2 back spans.
4.2.13
Aesthetics, including Lift Bridge Modifications (7.5%)
Aesthetic elements were included in the estimate at 7.5% of the non-bridge elements (assuming
that bridge aesthetics are adequately accounted for in the bridge unit price). However, a portion
of this aesthetics amount is included for aesthetic modifications to the existing lift bridge, which
in the preferred alternative package is to become a part of the Loop Trail system.
could fall somewhat below the estimate as a result of the conservatively high unit price
36
4.2.14
Right of Way
The majority of the right-of-way for this portion of the project was purchased in the past. The
review of right-of-way cost estimates demonstrated that the parcels have been identified and the
MnDOT right-of-way staff had estimated all of the costs considered to be associated with
securing the right-of-way for the project. The Review Team agreed to add an additional 10%
contingency on the estimates for this section of the Project.
37
4.2.15
Railroad Agreement Cost
A railroad agreement will be required for railroad relocation and coordination during the
construction of this section of the project. An estimate of $5 million dollars was provided by the
MnDOT Team members based on current scope and estimates.
Curve: Normal Distribution - Average probability that the agreement costs will fall within the
range of the estimate with equal chance of being above or below the estimate.
4.2.16
MnDOT provided detailed costs on the major utility relocation anticipated for this portion of the
project. Unit prices were reviewed and considered adequate based on present day pricing.
probability of the bid coming in significantly below the estimate. The Team considered that the
utility unit prices did not include a lot of risk factors.
38
4.3 Wisconsin Approach (Part 3 of 4): (St. Croix

River Bridge to East Project Terminus)
Scope of Part 3: Wisconsin Highway 35 will be relocated to the east of its present alignment to
provide an interchange with relocated St. Croix County Highway E. Wisconsin Highway 64 will
be constructed from the St. Croix River through the new interchange to the 150th Avenue
overpass in the Town of St. Joseph.
Note: Aesthetics calculation in the above table excludes the trail costs
Summary Probability Curve for Part 3 (Wisconsin Approach):
2004 Estimate
90% Probability
10% Probability
Current 2004 Estimate with Risk ~ $39 M

39
Probability Curve Assumptions for the elements of Part 3

(Wisconsin Approach):
4.3.1
Roadway (LWD Method) including Erosion Control (5%)
A review of the roadway elements for this Wisconsin approach section of the project showed that
the LWD multiplier utilized appeared to be reasonable for the scope, noting that this portion had
minor fill quantities. The Wisconsin DOT also reviewed the multiplier and found it reasonable
for the scope of the Wisconsin approach. An additional 5% was added to this item for the
contractors costs to meet environmental regulations such as erosion control requirements. An
additional 1.25% was also added to the multiplier to cover the costs of high performance
pavement.

40
4.3.2
Bridge STH 35 and CTH E over STH 64
A unit price of $125 per SF of bridge deck was considered reasonable, considering that the Team
felt it would be a steel bridge in lieu of a standard concrete beam bridge.
4.3.3
Bridge County Road E over STH 64
The Team considered a unit price of $75 per square foot of bridge deck was reasonable for this
bridge, with a concept of a standard concrete beam bridge considered.

price utilized in the estimate.
41
4.3.4
Loop Trail
A review of the trail costs showed that the $80,000 per mile unit price was reasonable. The
Team did not see any significant risk in this item. (Note: The Trail only covers that portion to be
built on existing STH 64 from the east end of the existing lift bridge up the hill to existing STH
35. The other portions will be along a new STH 64 from the river to 35/E interchange).
4.3.5
Approach Panels
Bridge approach panels were estimated based on recent MnDOT pricing. The bid results from
previous projects were utilized to arrive at this value. The Team considered the price of $20,000
per panel as a reasonable current estimate for this work.
Curve: Logistic Distribution - Reasonable probability that the bid will fall within the range of
the estimate.
42
4.3.6
Retaining Walls (Cast-in-Place)
A price of $85 per square foot of retaining wall was agreed to by the Team, confirming the
current estimate.
the estimate
4.3.7
Signals/Roundabouts
Team considered this as a reasonable estimate that had relatively low cost risk. Roundabouts
may be considered in lieu of signals at the intersections in Wisconsin, and the Team considered
that the costs of each would be reasonably close.
Curve: Students t distribution - Low risk on bid being significantly higher or lower than
estimate, considering that signal costs are relatively consistent for an intersection
43
4.3.8
Risk (10%)
The MnDOT LWD system estimate had included a risk factor of 10% for this Part of the Project.
Based on the Teams assessment of risk, the 10% was considered a reasonable amount for this
scope of work.
4.3.9
Aesthetics (7.5%)
The cost of aesthetics has been included in the estimate at a mitigation package negotiation
maximum level of 7.5% of the construction costs. As the aesthetics become further defined, the
project team will be required to ensure that the associated estimated costs would be within the
7.5% limit.

44
4.3.10 Risk: Right of Way (50%)

The right-of-way on the Wisconsin side of the project was considered to be at high risk due to
the volatility in land prices at this time. A significant acreage is to be purchased in Wisconsin,
with the prices having increased significantly recently. For this reason, the Team agreed to
include a risk factor of 50% on the right-of-way costs on the Wisconsin portion of the project.
45
4.4
St. Croix River Bridge (Part 4 of 4):
Scope of Part 4: The new four lane bridge will cross the river at the present location of the
Highway 36/Highway 95 Interchange, approximately 7,550 feet south of the Lift Bridge along
the Minnesota shoreline, crossing the St. Croix River perpendicular to its centerline and landing
approximately 6,450 feet south of the Lift Bridge along the Wisconsin shoreline.
Note: Aesthetics in the above table is a set allowance for the river bridge.
4.3 River Bridge Extradosed

The price of $280 per square foot cost of bridge deck for the extradosed structure was developed
by MnDOT and the project team based on information from other somewhat similar bridge
construction in the United States. Estimated costs of the upcoming extradosed bridge in
Connecticut were also considered. The Team felt that this price was on the low end of where the
price could be, and determined that there was significant risk in this price being met as the
project develops. The Team did agree to utilize the $280 per square foot cost as a conclusion of
this review, but recommended a high-risk amount to be included.
Summary Probability Curve for Part 4 (River Bridge):
2004 Estimate
Total ED
River Bridge
Span 2004
Estimate ~
$135 M
10% Probability
90% Probability
Estimate Review Base without Risk = $105 M
46
Probability Curve Assumptions for the elements of Part 4 (River

Bridge):
4.4.1
Risk: River Bridge (30%)
The Team determined that there was significant risk in the extradosed main span portion of this
project. Some of the major risks noted include the following:
Contractors difficult access to the construction site

Subsurface Conditions
Aesthetic considerations in the design
Anti-icing system
Long term maintenance / inspection system design
Environmental requirements
Cast-in-place vs. precast construction
Material availability and price volatility
Constructability
Code requirements
Impact loads
A structural evaluation breakout group met during the study to more closely evaluate the bridge
structure. Many of the noted risks had significant discussion, with the key elements summarized
as follows:
Contractors difficult access to the construction site
Much of the project will need to be accessed from the river. With the high slopes on opposite
banks, staging for the approaches will need to be high on the banks. Other considerations will be
required for the river work. Site condition will not allow haul roads or temporary roads to the
river piers. Bluff land disruption will also not be allowed for river access.
A staging area will need to be identified early to provide the contractor the best possible access
to this difficult site arrangement. Access considerations include the need to move the larger precast elements for easier delivery, and to minimize the impact on local traffic and existing
infrastructure
Subsurface Conditions
Indications are the bridge will be supported on a limestone stratum. It was assumed that
prefabricated cofferdams would be used during the construction of the foundations. Drilled
shafts may be considered as they require less earthwork and fill material than other types of
foundations, reduce the amount of hauling material, and may have less impact on the
environment as a result of less noise.
Considerations must be made for the water crossing, such as precast cofferdam, drilled shaft, or
cylinder piles. Also, alternate foundation types and load testing could be considered, including
47

self consolidating concrete for drilled shafts, micro-piles that are faster and can use smaller
equipment for installation.
It was recommended that design load testing needs to be completed as soon as possible to
determine the size of the foundation required for the Extradosed Bridge.
Aesthetic considerations in the design
The Team discussed that the pylon shape, based on the conceptual drawings presented during the
workshop, appears to have significant cost impact, with both special casting due to changes in
the cross section and possible special anchoring to the main girders. The difficulty in
constructing the pylons based on the final approved design is one of the highest risk factors on
the project.
Anti-icing system
An allowance was made for this system. Concerns are that this allowance must be closely
monitored as the design progresses for this element of the bridge structure.
Long term maintenance / inspection system design
The need for a built-in system for long-term maintenance was discussed, with requirements for
ease of ongoing periodic inspection of the entire bridge. The need to adequately address the
costs for this system was considered important as the design progresses.
Environmental requirements
The Team considered the need to meet all environmental requirements prior to and during
construction of the project as a potential cost risk. Inadequately addressing and preparing for
requirements could have significant impact on the duration of the project, thus impacting costs.
Cast-in-place vs. precast construction
This item was one of the most significantly discussed during the Review. The cost impact of
utilizing cast-in-place or precast members on the bridge was seen as providing a wide variance in
construction costs for a number of reasons. The risk of the design being constructable only
utilizing cast-in-place was considered a large cost impact to the project. Some of the potential
advantages to being able to utilize precast construction included the following:
Most of the work associated with pre-cast construction is done in the pre-casting
operation, which minimizes the time that the construction impacts the site
Pre-cast construction elements are highly durable (high performance concrete),
with lower life-cycle cost
Can improve construction zone safety with less work on-site
Based on the total width of the structure, if two Segmental concrete box girders
are be proposed at this location, the Precast concept will result in an increased
speed of construction as a result of ease of handling and erection.
48
Because of the short construction season the contractor may elect to perform as
much of the construction activity as possible using conventional precast
segmental technology
The Precast segments can reduce the erection time, the casting and erection can
occur simultaneously but independently. This parallel (production-line) method
provides maximum scheduling flexibility and construction time
This project is considered a large project; a standard shape of the superstructure
box girder will result in a significant cost saving as a result of increase speed of
erection.
The nature of segmental bridge requires that the protection of the deck be
paramount since the decks are not readily replaceable. To this end, overlays
should be considered for Extradosed bridge and also the approach bridge. Based
on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, overlay is encouraged.
Additional cost should be added to the cost of the superstructure.
Material availability and price volatility

The Team discussed that local availability of materials at the time of construction could have
significant impact on costs of the project. This risk could be alleviated somewhat by ensuring
that material availability and price volatility trends are closely tracked as the design progresses.
Constructability
Ease of constructability is considered a significant risk by the Team. Considerations of having
the contractor community involved in providing input during the design phase was seen as a way
of mitigating this risk and arriving at an efficient construction method.
Code requirements
Potential changes to local codes prior to the design being completed for the project was seen as a
potential risk by the team.
Impact loads
The design of the bridge foundations / piers to withstand the impact of ships or floating objects
was considered a cost risk to the project.
Other considerations the Team determined to minimize the potential time delay during design
and construction included the following:
Use accelerated testing technology to address material acceptance.

Conduct a formal bridge type study for the Extradosed Bridge and the balanced
cantilever construction
Review the impact of longer spans on the construction time and cost
Standardize structure types and shape for both the Extradosed Bridge spans and
the approach spans
49
Simplify complex framing. Work to arrive at a design concept with simplified

design and detail
Optimize substructures and foundations
Work towards Constant depth and constant shape for the entire length of the main
structure
The type of project delivery and procurement method was also discussed. Some of the major
items discussed included the following:
Design-build delivery system could result in a shorter construction time and shifts
the responsibility and risk to the design-build team. Stipends were also discussed
as a possibility. Concern with design-build is the amount of risk the contractor
will include for the extradosed bridge type.
Partial design/build (Best Value selection) was discussed as an alternative.
Design/bid/build; Traditional alternative could provide more price competition.
Risk is not having contracting community involved through the design phase and
bidding a less than optimal construction price.
Construction manager at risk (guaranteed maximum price); This system has good
contractor input through design, but no price competition.
Cost + time bidding; include incentives for schedule
Contracting techniques-incentive/disincentive
Partnering agreements
These major risks and factors provide an opportunity for the design selection team to manage the
concepts to result in alternatives that will allow a competitive market for efficient construction
solutions, thus minimizing the cost risks. Based on these risks the structural team evaluated each
category on the bridge and arrived at a composite risk factor for this portion of the project as
shown in the following table:
CATEGORY
Deck
Cables
Pylons / Piers
Foundations
Other / Miscellaneous
Total
a). Percentage of
Construction Cost
35%
10%
15%
35%
5%
b). Risk /
c). = a x b; Composite
Contingency
Risk Factor
20%
7.0%
15%
1.5%
100%
15.0%
25%
8.8%
20%
1.0%
100%
33.3%
After discussing the risk with the Team, the decision was made to utilize a 30% risk factor at this
time. This 30% factor was then included in the estimate and considered to cover much of the
risk associated with the risk items noted for this bridge.
50

The following is the probability assumption curve selected for the main spans of the bridge,
based on the previous evaluation of the risk assessment for this portion of the project.
Curve: Maximum Extreme Distribution - There is a high probability of bid exceeding

estimate. Low probability of the bid coming in significantly below the estimate. This is the
most significant item on the project, and demonstrates the risk the Team considered with the
extradosed bridge structure. The range of the extreme distribution goes to amounts over 50%
higher than the base estimate.
51
4.4.2
Aesthetics (Allowance)
MnDOT discussed that, according to cost participation policy, an allowance of $3 million dollars
would be utilized for aesthetics on the St. Croix River Crossing. This includes the extradosed
river spans plus the main approach spans. The Team did not review this allowance.
Curve: Uniform Distribution - Fixed allowance for this aesthetics item resulted in the Team
recommending a uniform probability distribution.
52
4.4.3
Based on other comparable projects, an allowance of $3 million dollars was included in the
estimate for anti-icing equipment to be installed on the bridge. The Team considered this
allowance reasonable for this stage of the project.
the estimate for this bridge equipment. Team felt comfortable with information from recent
projects.
4.4.4
Right of Way
No right-of-way is required for this portion of the project crossing the river.
53
4.5 Other Project Elements:

Scope of other project elements:
Mitigation
Fixed:
Variable:
Mitigation items that have a set amount allocated as a limit.

These costs have been set as fixed for this estimate and study.
Mitigation items that are estimates at this time and could vary as
the design develops.
Project Development, Design/Engineering and CEI

Percentage allowance for developing the project preliminary design, finalizing the design
and procurement of the project, and providing construction engineering and inspection
(CE&I) during the construction phase of the project.
Inflation
Estimate of the inflation (escalation) of the cost of design and construction costs as the
project progresses.
Construction Contingency
Contingency set aside for changes and unforeseen conditions during construction based
on the typical changes on other major structure projects throughout the country.
Management Reserve
Reserve set aside for the cost of approved requests for changes from outside parties such
as local municipalities and other public agencies/entities during construction.
Inflation Impact per additional month

Estimate of the cost impact to the project budget based on a month of delay during the
pre-construction phase.
54
Probability Curve Assumptions for the Other Project Elements:

Mitigation Package
A detailed mitigation estimate was provided during the Review. The total cost of the mitigation
package (fixed and variable) was estimated at $16.552 M. The cost data for the mitigation
package is included in Appendix A of the Report. The Team reviewed the mitigation portion and
concurred that it sufficiently covered the known mitigation scope required for the project. Since
many of the mitigation items were fixed, the Team calculated separate line items of fixed and
variable mitigation for risk assessment purposes.
4.5.1
Mitigation (Fixed)
Curve: Uniform Distribution - Fixed items for a portion of the mitigation have been identified
separately for this uniform probability distribution.
55
4.5.2
Mitigation (Variable)
the estimate for these variable mitigation items.
56
4.5.3 Project Development, Design/Engineering, and Construction,

Engineering and Inspection (CEI)
The team reviewed each of these items and the associated estimates in detail. An independent
evaluation was performed that arrived at close to the previously estimated 25% allowance for
these items. Based on this review, the Team considered this a reasonable estimate at this time.
There were multiple risk factors identified for this line item, including:
Limited pool of qualified consultants, designers, contractors could result in higher costs
Risk of increased costs due to delays
Risk of depth of knowledge/experience on this type of project
Risk of increased costs due to multiple contracts and multiple delivery methods
Funding availability could result in extended project duration increasing inflation costs
probability of the bid coming in significantly below the estimate. Although the Team considered
that the 25% factor covered all of these items, there was some concern that additional labor may
be required for the completion of the design stage, the construction stage, and the other project
development costs such as public involvement.
57
4.5.4
Inflation
Both MnDOT and WisDOT contacted their financial management team for information on
recent inflation. Both States considered that a 3% factor for inflation would be sufficient. The
Team did see significant risk in utilizing this amount, however, agreed to utilize this amount in
calculating inflation to the estimated midpoint of project expenditures in approximately 2010.
estimate with equal chance of being above or below the estimate. This is based on the Minnesota
and Wisconsin DOTs agreeing that a 3% inflation factor is considered appropriate at this time.
Although a normal distribution was utilized, this is a major unknown that could play a significant
part in the bid costs when the project is bid.
58
4.5.5
Based on FHWA major projects having changes during construction in the range of 5% to 10%,
and WisDOT experiencing similar change values on their major projects, the Team agreed to
utilize a 7.5% construction contingency for unknowns during this project. This contingency is
intended to cover unforeseen conditions, scope changes and other impacts where contractually
the contractor is owed additional funds beyond the contract amount.
estimate with equal chance of being above or below the estimate. Unknowns due to weather,
resource availability, site conditions and other events could impact this cost item.
59
4.5.6
Management Reserve
The Team discussed a management reserve to account for third party changes during
construction that have not been anticipated in the design. Although the Team did not consider
this a significant risk at this time, a 1% allowance was included in the estimate for the
management reserve.
This item is only an allowance and was not calculated in the bottom line probability distribution.
However, the 1% for management reserve is included in the final estimate based on the Teams
review.
4.5.7
Project Delivery Method
Although not a specific line item in the estimate, the risks associated with different types of
project delivery methods were discussed by the Team. Some of the risks and opportunities
associated with utilizing Design-Build in lieu of the Design-Bid-Build method were identified as
the following:
Risks by utilizing Design-Build:
WisDOT cannot utilize DB without Legislative Approval

Potential for higher bids in DB due to best value method
Potential of successful low bid DBB contractor being unqualified
Learning curve/lack of experience could result in the preparation of a more extensive
Design-Criteria
Risk of having to complete ROW acquisition
Limited creativity opportunity with DB process
Potential for extensive review process during design resulting in delayed construction,
delay claims
Opportunities by utilizing Design-Build:
D-B could result in accelerated schedule for the project

D-B could result in shift of risk/responsibility on to DB
Best Value D-B could provide better opportunities to attract qualified designers.
However this method may not result in the lowest bid.
Potential for initiating early industry review prior to formal acquisition process
Opportunity to identify economical design alternatives
60
APPENDICES
61
APPENDIX A
Estimate Summary Spreadsheet
and
Summary of Mitigation Items
62
63
APPENDIX B
Estimate Review Summary Presentation
* Note that this presentation was from the

Workshop/Review and does not include a later
change to the fixed mitigation value
64
St. Croix River Crossing Project

August 2005
65

Objective
Verify the accuracy and reasonableness

of the current total cost estimate to
complete the St. Croix River Crossing
project and to develop a probability
range for the cost estimate that
represents the projects stage of design.
66
Workshop Team Members
FHWA Staff
MnDOT Staff
WisDOT Staff
PBS&J (Consultant)
67

PBS&J Team Members
Multidiscipline A/E Firm ~ 3,700 employees

60+ offices nationwide
David Carter Team Leader
VP, National Business Sector Manager
Construction Consulting
Praveen Ommi Cost Estimator
VP, Division Manager Construction Consulting
Morad Ghali, P.E. Structural Engineer
Chief Structural Engineer
68

Agenda
Monday, Aug. 8
Tuesday, Aug. 9
Finalize Base Cost Estimates

Discussion on potential risks and opportunities
Risk Analysis
Thursday, Aug. 11
Review Structures Estimates

Review Non-Construction Costs (PE, CEI, CM, Inflation, Contingency)
Review Right-of-Way Cost Estimates
Wednesday, Aug. 10
Understanding of Project Scope, Current Cost Estimate

Review Roadway Estimates and LWD Estimating Process
Finalize review of project costs

Analyze risks and develop cost estimate probability range
Friday, Aug. 12
Presentation of findings and recommendations

69

Methodology
Project Scope Review

Current cost estimate overview for Preferred Alt. Package
Scope included in the 4 parts - Minn.(2), Wis., River Bridge
Understanding of the LWD Process
Identified Scope not accounted for in the current cost
estimate
Technical Disciplines input (Roadway, Structures, ROW,
Mitigation, etc.)
Structures Task Force Assembled
Assessment of Bridge Types Example of Connecticut Bridge
70

Methodology
Contractual Delivery Methods, Market Conditions

Risks and Opportunities Analysis
Inflation to anticipated mid-point of construction
Post Bid Costs
3% per year to 2010

Management Reserve
Establish Total Future estimated costs for programming

purposes
71

Summary of Review Findings
Confirmed that the project estimate is consistent with the stage

of project development
LWD Estimating System
Need for Documentation of multipliers selection

LWD Process has limitations on unique project requirements
The river bridge type, configuration and constructability are the

major contributors to the risk associated with the project
72

Review Results
(costs in millions)
Project
Estimate
Base Estimate (incl. construction,
Review
Results
$295
$311
$10
$55
$305
$366
mitigation, ROW, engr., cei)
Risk Estimate (scope, design

variances - construction and ROW)
Subtotal 2004 Costs
Inflation at 3% per year to 2010
$71
Subtotal 2010 Costs
$437
Construction Contingency (7.5%)

and Management Reserve (1%)
$37
Total Project Costs 2010
$474
73

Review Results
(costs in millions)
Project
Estimate
Base Estimate (incl. construction,
Review
Results
Delta
$295
$311
$16
$10
$55
$45
$305
$366
$61
mitigation, ROW, engr., cei)
Risk Estimate (scope, design variances construction and ROW)
Subtotal 2004 Costs
Inflation at 3% per year to 2010
$71
Subtotal 2010 Costs
$437
Construction Contingency (7.5%) and

Management Reserve (1%)
$37
Total Project Costs 2010
$474
74

Review Results
Additional Scope / Revised Estimates Identified in Review ($ in Millions)
Railroad Agreement
Erosion Control and High Perf. Pavement
Adjusted Wisc. STH 35 Bridge Cost per SF
Bridge Removals
Contaminated Soil Removal
Retaining Walls revised estimate
Reduction in Aesthetics revised estimate
TOTAL ESTIMATE CHANGE
Note: Changes include risk and engineering factors
75
$ 6.9
$ 5.4
$ 3.8
$ 3.0
$ 0.7
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$-4.2
~ $16 M

Review Results
Additional Risk Impacts ($ in Millions):
Extradosed Bridge Risk

(30%)
Minn. Approach Spans to River Bridge Risk (20%)
Right-of-Way Risk
Minnesota ROW (10%)
Wisconsin ROW (50%)
Associated Engr/CEI (25%)
TOTAL ADDITIONAL RISK IMPACT ~
Above Values rounded to nearest million dollars

76
$ 30
$ 4
$ 1
$ 2
$ 8
$ 45 M

Review Results
Risk Simulation Impact of delay:
Total Estimated Impact for one year

~ $13 million
77
Frequency
Frequency
Cost Estimate Review - Risk Analysis
Estimated Cost
Estimated Cost
60% Certainty
River Bridge Maximum Extreme Distribution
Signals Students t Distribution
60% Certainty
Frequency
60%from
Probability
$306 to
from
$400
from$332
$100Mto to
$430
$120
M M
Estimated Cost
Roadway Approaches Minimum Extreme Distribution

78

Risk Analysis
Total Project Estimate Review - 2004
60% Probability
from $306 to
$332 M

79
Total Project
Estimate
Review 2004
with Risk ~
$366 M

Risk Analysis
Total Project Estimate Review - 2010
60% Probability
from $400 to
$430 M
Estimate Review without risk = $403 M

80
Total Project
Costs with risk
and inflation
2010 ~ $475 M

Risk Analysis
Part 4 Extradosed River Bridge Spans
60% Probability
from
$100
to
60%
Probability
$120 from
M
$400 to
60% Probability
$430 M
from $100 to
$120 M
Estimate Review Base = $105 M

81
Total ED River
Bridge Spans
Estimate with risk
~ $135 M

Recommendations
Consider review results
Reporting current estimated costs range

Reporting risk for entire project
Considering programming estimated costs
Consider Packaging Project to attract a

high level of competition
Innovative contract administration options
82

Recommendations
Focus effort on River Bridge configuration
affects the degree of environmental impacts and

construction duration
has impact on approach spans
presents the opportunity to manage the risk
Constructability
Competition precast vs. cast-in-place option
Materials availability
HAS LARGEST IMPACT ON PROJECT

~ 60% of the project estimated costs
~ 80% of the risk on the total project
83

Conclusions
Current Concept has a relatively high cost risk
Cost risk can be managed through:
Cost effective design decisions on river bridge

Focus on river bridge constructability
Contractor involvement / options
Range of Probability in mid-60% certainty:

Estimate
2004 Base
2010 Programming
20%
80%
$306 M
$400 M
$332 M
$430 M
84

Questions?
85
APPENDIX C
Review Agenda
86
WORKSHOP AGENDA
DATE
TIME
ACTIVITY
8/8 - 8/12
7:30 am
Continental Breakfast
8/9 - 8/11
12:0012:30 Lunch
8/8 Mon
8-11
Introductions, review project scope, status, cost estimates
8/8
11-12
Review Roadway cost estimates
8/8
12-1
Senior Management briefing Working Lunch
8/8
1 4:30
(Continue) Review Roadway cost estimates
8/9 Tue
89
Review Structures Cost Estimates/Structures general discussion
9-9:45
Connecticut Project Presentation Steve Stroh, URS
9:45-10:30
Continue Structures Costs discussion/Struc. Task Force identified
10:30-12:00
Structures Task Force Breakout
8/9
10:30-12:00
Review other non-construction costs
8/9
12:302:30
Review Structures Task Force discussion results
8/9
2:30-4:30
(Continue) Review other non-construction costs
8/10 Wed
8-10:30
Review ROW / Aesthetics / Signals / Ret. Walls / Other
8/10
10:3012
Finalize Roadway and Bridge cost reviews
8/10
12:304:30
Identify cost and schedule risks for the project
8/11 Thu
812
Finalize review and risk analysis / discuss delivery methods
8/11
12:304:30
Finalize review and begin preparation of presentation
8/12 Fri
8 11:30
Finalize and practice presentation
8/12
12 2
Presentation and wrap up Working Lunch
(8/8 and 8/12 working lunches)
87
APPENDIX D
Review Work Plan
88
WORK PLAN
Objective: Verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the current total cost estimate to complete the
St. Croix River Bridge project and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents
the projects stage of design.
Project Background: This project consists of a new National Highway System crossing of the St.
Croix River, a federally designated wild and scenic river and the State Line between Minnesota and
Wisconsin. The purpose of the project is to provide the capacity for existing and future traffic needs
and to remove through traffic from local traffic within historic downtown Stillwater, Minnesota.
The construction portion of the project consists of 4 elements: 1) Trunk Highway (TH) 36 Trunk
Highway (TH) 5 to Osgood Ave., 2) the Minnesota Approach, 3) The River Bridge Crossing, and 4)
the Wisconsin Approach. This project is currently in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) stage. The cost estimate for the extradosed bridge in alternative B-1 will be reviewed along
with the Minnesota and Wisconsin Approaches and TH36-TH 5 to Osgood Ave.
Approach/Methodology:
Review project details and review the existing project estimates

o All costs associated with the project shall be reviewed, including construction,
maintenance of traffic, preliminary engineering, construction engineering, utilities,
right-of-way, NEPA environmental mitigations, environmental stewardship,
congestion management system, public relations, hazardous and contaminated
materials, program management, and natural and cultural resources. Validity of
present day costs, inflation factors, and the application of contingencies will be
analyzed.
Use a systematic process review to evaluate the available information and then identify and
describe cost risks associated with the unknown elements of the project. Prioritize all
identified risks and assign costs to each risk.
Use appropriate computer simulation software to model the cost estimate structure.
Develop the cost estimate and schedule for the project as a probability range.
A team has been assembled to meet the above objective utilizing information, which will be
provided by MnDOT. The Team will be reviewing with the Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statements (SDEIS) total project cost estimate report for Alternative B-1 extradosed bridge
option.
89

Workshop (Tentative) Schedule: The following general approach will be used to systematically
review the total cost estimate and maintain team focus throughout the 5 day workshop:
Task / Time
Mon 8/8
am
pm
Tue 8/9
am
pm
Wed 8/10
am
pm
Thu 8/11
am
pm
Fri 8/12
am
pm
1. Familiarize team with overall Project

Scope, current project status, preferred
alternative scope, and cost estimates - AM
Present approach to Senior Leadership at noon
2. Review Roadway/MOT cost estimates
AM/PM. Drainage PM
3. Review Bridge Structure cost estimate
AM (possible Task Force Assembly). Include
~ 9 a.m. presentation on Connecticut bridge.
4. Review other non-construction costs (PE,
CEI, CM, PR) - PM
- Bridge Task Force Assembly - PM
5. Review Right-of-Way Cost Estimates AM
6. Review Aesthetics, Signals/Retaining
Walls, Mitigation package and other non
bridge/roadway costs AM
7. Finalize review of Roadway and Bridge
costs as required AM/PM
8. Identify cost and schedule risks associated
with elements of project - PM
9. Finalize review of overall project costs,
discuss project delivery methods - AM
10. Analyze risks and develop cost estimate
probability range - AM
12. Review probability range of cost estimate
and schedule, and begin development of
presentation - PM
13. Finalize presentation/review of cost
estimate AM.
Present findings in briefing - PM
The above schedule will be utilized to keep the Review on track, however, there will be flexibility
should further review of certain disciplines be required.
The team will review all components of the Total Project Current Cost Estimate. Validity of present
day costs, inflation factors, and the application of contingencies will be analyzed.
90
Results: The results will be summarized for a preliminary briefing on Friday afternoon, August 12th,
and will be submitted in a final report to be issued within 30 days of the completion of the Review.
Team Members: The following will participate as team members for the cost review:
FHWA Minnesota Division

FHWA Major Projects Unit
MnDOT
WisDOT
PBS&J Team Members
Required Documents (tentative list):
Most recent/updated Cost Estimate (Electronic copy in spreadsheet required)

DSEIS Report (electronic and/or hardcopy)
Drawings
Cost Estimate Quantities and Unit Pricing Back-up (if available)
MnDOT Historical Unit Prices (for past 3 years, if available)
Recent MnDOT/WisDOT Bid Results for major projects (for 2004/2005, if available)
Contractual Delivery Method and Project Restrictions impacting cost and schedule (if any)
Any other related and application information
91
APPENDIX E
List of Attendees
and
Daily Sign-in Sheets
92

All Team members and other attendees from the first day of the Review are shown below. The
next few pages include the sign-in sheets from all five days of the workshop.
St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Validation Attendees

Various Sessions during Week of August 8 12, 2005
Name
Thomas Ravn
Amber Blanchard
Todd Clarkowski
Terry Pederson
Frank Pafko
Praveen Ommi
David Carter
Morad G.Ghali
Romeo Garcia
Tom Sorel
Chris Crowmwell
Kevin Kliethermes
Paul Nishimoto
Valerie Svensson
Adam Josephson
Rick Arnebeck
Gary Thompson
Terry Zoller
John Sampson
Karl Weissenbom
Dave Hall
Ed Katzmark
Alana Getty
Douglas Differt
Bob Winter
Dick Stehr
Pat Hughes
Dan Dorgan
David Dahlberg
Tom Styrbicki
Paul Kivisto
Keith Molnau
Bill Dreher
Shalini Chandra
Joe Gladke
Rich Lamb
Cheryl Martin
Bob Newbery
Kevin Chesnik
Khani Sahobjam
Tom Beekman
Represents
MnDOT ICI
MnDOT BR DB
MnDOT Metro
WisDOT PM
MnDOT Envir.
PBS&J
PBS&J
PBS&J
FHWA
FHWA
FHWA
FHWA
FHWA Washington
MnDOT Bridge
MnDOT Metro
MnDOT Metro
MnDOT ICI
MnDOT Metro
MnDOT Metro
MnDOT LA
MNDOT Bridge
MnDOT Metro
MnDOT Metro
MnDOT Dep Comm
MnDOT Operations
MnDOT Eng Services
MnDOT Metro
MnDOT Bridge
MnDOT Bridge
MnDOT Bridge
MnDOT Bridge
MnDOT Bridge
WisDOT Bridge
MnDOT Grad. Eng.
MnDOT Construction
MnDOT Geotech
FHWA
WisDOT Environmental
WisDOT
MnDOT Metro
WisDOT Planning
On the second day (Tuesday) of the Review, a member of the design team for an extradosed
bridge structure currently being designed for the I-95 New Harbor Crossing (Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge) in New Haven, Connecticut, also joined the Team to provide an overview of
extradosed bridges and to participate in a bridge structures focus group that day.
93
94
95
96
97
98

ST Croix Cost Est Review Report Final - 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ST Croix Cost Est Review Report Final - 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St.

Croix River Crossing

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

COST ESTIMATE REVIEW SUMMARY

COST ESTIMATE REVIEW PROCESS

Section III FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE ADJUSTMENTS

Section IV DETAILED PROJECT REVIEW /

PART 1 TH 5 to Osgood (Minnesota Roadway)

PART 2 Minnesota Approach (Osgood - River Bridge) 28

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

Section IV DETAILED PROJECT REVIEW /

PART 3 Wisconsin Approach

PART 4 Extradosed St. Croix River Bridge

Other Project Elements

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

Estimate Summary Spreadsheets

Estimate Review Summary Presentation

Cost Estimate Review Agenda

Cost Estimate Review Work Plan

Cost Estimate Review Attendees

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

Section I - Cost Estimate Review Summary

RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE ADJUSTMENTS:

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

2004 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT

Estimate Review without Risk = $317 M

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

2010 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT

2010 Estimate Review without Risk = $412M

St. Croix River Crossing

New crossing of the St. Croix

Construction Range 2009 2014

Improved traffic flow between

Cost of extradosed bridge type

Estimate Review without Risk = $412M

Project Cost Range (2010 Programming):

10% Probability ~ $410 Million

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

Section II Cost Estimate Review Process

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

2.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW:

2.3 REVIEW TEAM:

2.4 REVIEW CLARIFICATIONS / QUALIFICATIONS

Detailed verification of quantities and unit prices was not performed

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

Section III Findings and Recommendations

ADDITIONAL COST DUE TO IDENTIFIED RISKS:

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

3.2 REVIEW PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT:

3.2.1 2004 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW:

Estimate Review without Risk = $317 M

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

3.2.2. 2010 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW:

Estimate Review without Risk = $412 M

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

3.2.3 EXTRADOSED RIVER BRIDGE COST ESTIMATE REVIEW (2004):

Estimate Review Base without Risk = $105 M

St. Croix River Crossing Project Cost Estimate Review

3.3 REVIEW FINDINGS: