BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2374| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSENT Bill No: AB 2374 Author: Chiu (D) Introduced:2/18/16 Vote: 21 SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/21/16 AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/11/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Construction Manager/General Contractor method: regional transportation agencies: ramps SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill extends existing authority for regional transportation agencies (RTAs) to use the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), as specified. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Sets forth provisions governing public works contracting. These provisions generally prohibit public agencies from contracting with the same firm for both the design and the construction phases of a project. AB 2374 Page 2 2)Requires, generally, public works construction contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. 3)Describes the CM/GC procurement method and makes legislative findings and declarations regarding benefits related to risk transfer and project phasing using CM/GC. 4)Authorizes the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to use CM/GC on no more than six projects, at least five of which must have construction costs greater than $10 million. 5)Authorizes the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority, the San Mateo County Transit District, and the San Diego Association of Governments to use CM/GC for transit projects. 6)Authorizes an RTA to use the CM/GC project delivery method to design and construct projects on expressways that are not on the state highway system if the projects are developed in accordance with an expenditure plan approved by the voters. 7)Defines key terms relative to the authority granted to RTAs to use CM/GC, as specified. 8)Provides that the entity responsible for maintenance of local streets and roads within the same jurisdiction of the expressway shall be responsible for the maintenance of the expressway. 9)Sets forth provisions governing the process for procuring CM/GC services. This bill extends existing authority for RTAs to use the CM/GC AB 2374 Page 3 procurement method for ramp projects that are not on the state highway system, and additionally removes the limitation that an authorized CM/GC project must be included in a sales tax measure expenditure plan. Comments 1)Purpose. The author notes that this bill will extend CM/GC authorization to ramps that are not on the state highway system and remove the requirement that authorized projects be included in a voter-approved expenditure plan. As a result, this bill authorizes the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to utilize CM/GC for the Yerba Buena Island (YBI) West-Side Bridges Retrofit project - which is a seismic safety project on a locally owned and operated road facility. 2)Major transportation project. YBI West-Side Bridges Interchange Improvement Project includes two major components: a) On the east side of Treasure Island, the YBI I-80 Ramps project will construct new westbound on and off ramps to the new Eastern Span of the Bay Bridge. b) On the west side of the island, the YBI West-Side Bridges Retrofit project will seismically retrofit the existing bridge structures-critical components of island traffic circulation between the islands and the Bay Bridge. Specifically, the $66 million YBI West-Side Bridges Retrofit project will seismically retrofit or replace eight locally owned bridge structures that connect Treasure Island to the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The facility is locally owned and not a part of the state highway system, and partially funded with state transportation revenues. This project has been identified by the San Francisco Transportation Authority as a "complicated public safety project, dealing with unique AB 2374 Page 4 topographical, environmental, and construction staging issues." 1)Traditional project delivery. Traditionally, state and local entities develop and construct transportation projects with a process known as the design-bid-build (DBB) delivery method. This method requires the public agency to fully design a project and then ask general contractors to bid on the construction contract based on the agency's design. DBB procurement results in project risks being largely borne by the agency that designs the project, because the agency bears the financial burden if the plans are inadequate or unanticipated construction issues arise. 2)What is CM/GC? The CM/GC project-delivery method allows an agency to engage a construction manager during the design process to provide assistance to the design team, which can ultimately lead to a more constructible project. When design is nearly complete, the agency and the construction manager negotiate a guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the project based on the defined scope and schedule. If this price is acceptable to both parties, they execute a contract for construction services, and the construction manager becomes the general contractor. Studies suggest CM/GC often leads to less costly or more expediently delivered projects because of the construction manager's involvement in the design process. 3)Why pursue alternative project delivery approaches? For decades, state and local agencies have relied on the DBB procurement method for transportation projects. DBB reduces the risk for the construction contractor because the state or local agency has a completed design, procured right-of-way, and achieved environmental clearance before letting the contract. Agencies using this traditional method generally receive the lowest initial-cost construction contracts for a given project, because contractors are competitively bidding on a relatively risk-free project. Drawbacks to DBB can include longer completion times, constructability challenges AB 2374 Page 5 unforeseen by the designers, and increasing costs over time due to change orders and claims. The CM/GC process is meant to provide continuity and collaboration between the design and construction phases of the project. Construction managers have an incentive to provide input during the design phase that will enhance constructability of the project later, because they know that they will have the opportunity to become the general contractor for the project. Furthermore, CM/GC promises to save project delivery time, provide earlier cost certainty, transfer some risks from the public agency to the contractor, and ensure project constructability. Finally, it allows each agency to design the project to complement the general contractor's strengths and capabilities, thereby providing maximum competitiveness in a low-bid procurement. 4)Current status. Regarding current CMGC projects underway, while none of the projects have yet been completed, no significant problems have been reported. In fact, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority has analyzed the potential use of CM/GC for this project and estimates that this procurement method could reduce construction time by an estimated six months, reduce costs by between 10% and 15%, and reduce project risk. As these projects move toward completion, a more thorough examination of the advantages and disadvantages of CM/GC contracting will be required. However, as the pros and cons continue to be evaluated, utilizing CM/GC for other types of projects may be beneficial for evaluation purposes. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No AB 2374 Page 6 SUPPORT: (Verified6/23/16) Automobile Club of Southern California California Transportation Commission San Francisco County Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority OPPOSITION: (Verified6/23/16) None received ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/11/16 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood NO VOTE RECORDED: Gonzalez, Rendon Prepared by:Manny Leon / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121 6/24/16 14:33:43 **** END **** AB 2374 Page 7