May 2012 - American Association of State Highway and...

AAAASSHHTTOO//FFHHWWAA SSuurrvveeyy oonn CCoonnssttrruuccttiioonn CCoosstt IInnccrreeaasseess aanndd CCoommppeettiittiioonn 22001122

May 2012

1

Contents

Summary of Responses .................................................................................................................................. 4

Competition ............................................................................................................................................... 5

1) Have you experienced an increase or decrease in the number of competitive bids per project over the past six years? ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2) Additional comments/details for the question above. ............................................................................ 6

3) Please provide data for the number of projects and value of projects for the levels of competition shown below for 2006 through 2011. (If data is not available, please summarize your perception of any changes in the competitive bidding environment during that time.) .............................................................. 7

4) Additional comments/details for the question above. .......................................................................... 11

5) To the extent information is available; please provide data regarding the average variance from the engineer's estimate for various levels of competition in 2011 ...................................................................... 12

6) If competition has decreased in your state, to what do you attribute this situation? (Select all that apply) ............................................................................................................................................................. 13

7) If competition has increased, to what do you attribute this situation? ................................................ 14

8) Have you experienced an increase in the number of single bids over the past 2 years? ...................... 16

9) Additional comments/details for the question above. .......................................................................... 17

10) Approximately what percentage of the following types of projects (by number of projects, not dollar amount) received single bids in 2011? ................................................................................................ 18

11) If single bids have become an issue in your state, is it confined to rural areas or specific areas of your state? .................................................................................................................................................... 22

12) Does your state publish a bidders list for proposals or plans? .......................................................... 24

Reviewing Bids for Competition .............................................................................................................. 25

13) Does your state have formal procedures for reviewing bids for competition? ................................. 25

14) If your state has formal review procedures, please provide a web link if available. ......................... 27

15) Does your state have formal guidance for reviewing bids for bid unbalancing? .............................. 29

16) If your state has formal review procedures, please provide a web link if available. ......................... 31

Cost Increases .......................................................................................................................................... 32

17) Over the past two years, what has been the general trend for construction bid prices in your state? 32

18) If your state has experienced an increase in bid prices, what is the average annual percentage increase in your bid prices for the past six years? ......................................................................................... 34

19) Is the reported average annual increase based on: .......................................................................... 36

20) If data is available, what construction bid items have experienced the most rapid cost increases in the past year? ................................................................................................................................................ 37

2

21) Which of the following construction price adjustment clauses do you typically use? ...................... 38

Material Shortages .................................................................................................................................. 41

22) Have you experienced project delays resulting from material shortages of any of the following in the past 2 or 3 years? .................................................................................................................................... 41

23) Have you granted contract time extensions for any specific material shortages in the past 2 or 3 years? 42

Initiatives by Your State ........................................................................................................................... 44

24) If your state has experienced reductions in competition and/or significant cost increases in bids, what initiatives have you implemented or considered to address these issues? .......................................... 44

25) Of the above initiatives, which three have been the most effective (or which three does your state consider to be the most effective) in fostering competition and controlling costs? (Select three) ............... 46

Appendix A: The number of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011 ........................ 47

Appendix B: The value of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011 ............................ 53

Appendix C: The data for the average variance from the engineer’s estimate for various levels of competition in 2011 ...................................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix D: The percentage of single bids received for each type in 2011 ................................................. 60

Appendix E: The average annual percentage increase in the bid prices for the past 6 years ...................... 62

Appendix F: The average approximate percent increases in the past year .................................................. 63

3

Summary of Responses

AASHTO/FHWA Survey on Construction Cost Increases and Competition 2012

In order to respond to a USDOT Office of the Inspector General draft report on Oversight of State

Contracting Practices Relating to Recovery Act Funds, the FHWA and AASHTO have agreed to survey

the states regarding competition and price issues. We have elected to use many of the same

questions from the March 2006 and August 2007 national survey in order to assess changes over the

past five to six years.

36 member State Departments of Transportation responded to the survey. This included Arkansas,

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah,

Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. A response was also

received from the Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal Department, Canada. The

map representing States responded is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: States responded (36 States and Nova Scotia)

4

Competition

1) Have you experienced an increase or decrease in the number of competitive bids per project over the past six years?

• Increase: 31 (AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MT, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH,

OK, OR, PA, RI, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, Nova Scotia)

• Decrease: 1 (MN)

• No change: 5 (KS, MI, MO, ND, TN)

Figure 2: Increase or decrease in the number of competitive bids

5

2) Additional comments/details for the question above.

• States responding “Increase” with comments: - DE : Change in # of bids per project (compared to previous year)

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Increase (%) 21 9 18 3 18

- IL: With the downturn in the economy, the contractors that did non-government type work began bidding on IDOT work.

- ME: When the economy went south, may contractors that bid only private work starting bidding DOT work.

- MD: The trend is not clearly defined. The last three years we have had more competitive bids than the three years prior. However the number of competitive bids has fluctuated yearly consistent with the number of contracts that have been let.

- MT: Peak 3rd quarter of 2010. - NV: We saw an increase over the past six years that peaked a couple of years ago. As our

budget continues to decrease, we anticipate another increase in the number of bids. - NJ: Online Bidding via Bidex - NY: Competition increased in all segments except for pavement marking contracts - OH: The answer to q1 uses a base of 3.9 average # of bids in 2006 and compares that to the

average of 4.2 # of bids between 2007-2011. - OK: From an average of about 3 bids/project to over 4 bids/project. - RI: Since the onset of the "Great Recession", RIDOT has seen an increase in the average

number of bids per contract. - UT: The average bid price per project for 2006 was 2.59. The average bid price per project

peaked in 2009 at 4.59 and has dropped since. - VT: The increase has been small but steady - WV: increase due to move to electronic bidding and steady program - Nova Scotia: increase noted in 2011 season in particular

• States responding “No change” with comments:

- KS: No significant change. - MO: From 2006 to 2008, we experienced a slight decrease in bids/call from 3.4 to 2.9 and

from 2009 to 2011, we had a slight increase from 3.0 to 3.3. Overall, the competition over the last 6 years averaged out to be no significant change.

- TN: Average number of bids per project for last 6 years ranged from 2.93- 3.38.

6

3) Please provide data for the number of projects and value of projects for the levels of competition shown below for 2006 through 2011. (If data is not available, please summarize your perception of any changes in the competitive bidding environment during that time.)

Data for the number of projects

• The average response data for question 3 from 36 State DOTs excluding Nova Scotia is shown

below.

• All answers from 37 respondents are attached in the Appendix A.

• The number of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011 is shown in Figure

3 and 4.

• The value of ‘Average number of bids for all projects’ is compared with the previous survey

done in 2006 and 2007 in Figure 5.

Figure 3: Average number of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011

State Calendar Year

Total Number of

Construction Contracts Let

Number of Contracts with 3 or more bids

Number of Contracts with

2 bids


1 bid

Average number of bids for all

projects

36 States Average

2006 295 182 73 40 3.3

2007 299 192 69 38 3.5

2008 301 210 58 32 4.0

2009 377 280 64 33 4.5

2010 362 271 59 32 4.6

2011 320 239 53 27 4.4

7

Figure 4: The average number of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011

Figure 5: Average number of bids per contract for all projects from 2001 through 2011

8

Data for the value of projects

• The average of the annual contract value from each state (responses to question 3) from 36

State DOTs excluding Nova Scotia is shown below.

• All answers from 37 respondents are attached in the Appendix B.

• Responses are compared with the previous survey information from 2006 and 2007 in Figure

6 and 7.

Figure 6: The average of annual contract value by level of competition for 2006 through 2011

State Calendar Year

Average Annual Value of

Construction Contracts Let

($millions)

Average Annual Value of Contracts

with 3 or more bids ($millions)


with 2 bids ($millions)


with 1 bid ($millions)

Average of 36 States

2006 795 490 256 92

2007 861 509 175 189

2008 761 598 115 60

2009 979 797 119 79

2010 841 681 112 59

2011 787 645 95 52

9

Figure 7: The average of annual contract value by level of competition for 2006 through 2011

10


• FL: 2007 includes $2,493.1 million 3P contract (Miami Tunnel); 2009 includes $948.4 million in design-build-finance and build-finance projects.

• ID: Maintenance and stockpile projects were shifted to being bid through purchasing sometime during this period.

• KY: Years 2006 and 2007 do not include 10 Design/Build projects let during that time. • MN: 2007 was the 35W bridge disaster replacement; 2009/2010 was stimulus. • MO: The above data includes all projects let (including any projects that were rejected) as

referenced in the question, however for questions #5, #10, #18 and #20 only include data for awarded contracts.

11

5) To the extent information is available; please provide data regarding the average variance from the engineer's estimate for various levels of competition in 2011

• The average response data and its related graph for question 5 from 34 responded State DOTs

is shown in Figure 8.

• All answers from 37 respondents are attached in the Appendix C.

Figure 8: The average variance from the engineer’s estimate for various levels of competition for 36 States in 2011

1-bid projects (%) 2-bid projects (%) 3-bid projects (%) 4-bid projects (%) 5-or more bid projects (%)

7.5 0.5 -3.8 -4.0 -7.0

12

6) If competition has decreased in your state, to what do you attribute this situation? (Select all that apply)

• The answers of why competition has decreased are shown in Figure 9 including answers from

2006 survey for comparison.

Figure 9: Reasons why competition has decreased

Attributes to decrease competition Number of States with the selection in 2012

Number of States with the selection in 2006

Industry consolidation (contractors, quarries, etc.)

2 (MN, KS) 28

Increased work with the same number of contractors

1 (MN) 27

Downsizing of workforce due to instability of transportation funding

1 (NV) 6

Regulatory restrictions, such as environmental permits for plants and quarries

0 6

Increased technical requirements in contracts

0 7

Bankruptcies 0 1

Contractor availability 1 (KS) N/A

Material availability 0 N/A

Natural disaster recovery or other regional market issues increasing non-highway construction demand

0 3

Other 10

13

7) If competition has increased, to what do you attribute this situation?

• Most states who commented cited the downturn in the economy with decreased commercial work as a main factor in increased competition. Some others said about increased bidders from out of State.

• AR: Decrease in other construction areas (i.e. building/commercial) and additional federal funds made available for highways (ARRA).

• DE: current economics of marketplace • FL: Decline of residential and commercial construction. The public sector (mainly FDOT) was

the primary source for contracts. • GA: Low number of contracts • ID: merging of companies and willingness/necessity to travel further to obtain work • IL: With the downturn in the economy, the contractors that did non-government type work

began bidding on IDOT work • IN: More bidders from out of state plus all bidders are submitting more bids • IA: Decreased commercial work • KS: Lack of project lettings in the adjacent states. • KY: Less work is being let by others. • LA: With the down turn in the housing market and other areas of construction, the lack of

availability of work due to the economy has lead to an increase in competition. • ME: Lack of private work • MD: In recent years the number of contracts has increased, however, the contract values are

getting smaller. There are less large projects for contractors to bid on. There seems to be a trend that contractors that were previous chasing larger contracts are now chasing the smaller contracts which used to be bid typically by smaller contractors. This seems to be causing more contractors to chase smaller contracts thus creating more competition.

• MA: Limited work in the private sector • NV: Over the six years, we've seen an increase as the economy has declined. Contractors are

looking for work. We anticipate more bids as we begin putting out fewer projects. • NY: Decrease in construction spending during the recession has caused an increase in

competition • NC: economy • OH: Private construction opportunities have dried up in Ohio causing current Ohio DOT

contractors to bid more work to replace lost private construction and new contractors that traditionally would be working on private construction to bid on Ohio DOT work.

• OK: Downturn of commercial building construction. • OR: Lack of private sector construction from 2008 to present. • PA: Less work available in the private sector as well as municipal government sector.

14

• RI: Due to the state of the economy and the decrease in private sector construction activity, RIDOT has seen new firms bidding on State Highway projects.

• TN: Same competition • UT: UDOT has seen an increase in bids from Contractors outside the state. • VT: New paving methods bring in more non-supplier bidders to paving projects; Increase in

interest from out of state bidders; Variation ion types of project let (more maintenance style projects)

• VA: Private Development/Civil Construction work market has been depressed the last several years which has increased Contractor availability and competition.

• WA: Economy. Less city, county and private work available. • WV: move to electronic bidding and steady program • WI: Loss of work in other employment sectors. • WY: At the beginning time frame of requested information, energy was booming in Wyoming,

so there was a shortage of contractors doing highway work as there is much more profit in the energy industry. When the energy work began to subside, then there were more contractors available to do highway work, consequently an increase in competition. Simultaneously, surrounding state budgets decreased, so there has also been an influx of non-resident contractors bidding WYDOT work.

• Nova Scotia: Contractors from neighbouring Provinces bidding on our work

15

8) Have you experienced an increase in the number of single bids over the past 2 years?

• The data about an experience of an increase in the number of single bids over the past 2 years

is shown in Figure 10 and 11.

• 19% (7/36) replied ‘Yes’ in this survey compare to 78% (28/36) of 2006.

Figure 10: Experience of an increase in the number of single bids over the past 2 years

Figure 11: States for an experience of an increase in the number of single bids over the past 2 years

16


• IN: The increase (9 to 12) does not appear significant. • IA: The only year we had a significant increase in single bid contracts was in 2009, the year we

let almost all of our ARRA projects. • MI: Our main concern with single bids is pavement marking and preventive maintenance

projects. (crack sealing and overband crack fill) • MN: probably due to "unclassified" work type and remote location • MO: We have noticed this trend in certain rural areas of the state. • NY: Number of single bids has decreased. • TN: Single bids in last 2 years about the same (from 19% to 16.5%) • VA: Single bids mostly occur on paving projects in rural areas where competition is limited due

to plant locations and haul distances. • WV: Over one half of the entire state only has one paving contractor, therefore when more

projects are let in that area the number of single bids increases. • WY: Although 2011 had 2 more single bids than 2010, at only 3 single bids, there is no

validation of any trend. • Nova Scotia: Generally more bidders on all tenders.

17

10) Approximately what percentage of the following types of projects (by number of projects, not dollar amount) received single bids in 2011?

• The average percentage of single bids received in 2011 from 29 valid responses is shown in Figure 12.

• U.S. maps with the percentage of single bids for each State by types of project are shown in Figure 13 through 18, respectively.

• All answers from 37 respondents including comments for this question are attached in the

Appendix D.

Figure 12: The average percentage of single bids received for each type in 2011

Asphalt resurfacing Reconstruction Major Projects Major Bridge

Specialty Projects /

Transportation Enhancements

Maintenance Projects

19% 6% 1% 1% 17% 10%

18

Figure 13: The percentage of single bids received in 2011 for asphalt surfacing

Figure 14: The percentage of single bids received in 2011 for reconstruction

19

Figure 15: The percentage of single bids received in 2011 for major projects

Figure 16: The percentage of single bids received in 2011 for major bridge

20

Figure 17: The percentage of single bids received in 2011 for specialty projects/transportation enhancements

Figure 18: The percentage of single bids received in 2011 for maintenance projects

21

11) If single bids have become an issue in your state, is it confined to rural areas or specific areas of your state?

• Of the 29 states that responded that single bids are in issue in their state, Figure 19 and 20 detail where this issue typically occurs.

Figure 19: Type of single bid area

Rural areas only Specific areas of the state More widespread

Single bids are generally not an issue in my state

Other

1 (MN)

11 (IL, IA, KS, KY, MT,

TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, Nova Scotia)

1 (RI)

13 (ID, IN, LA, MI, MO, NV, NJ, NY, ND, PA,

UT, WA, WY)

3 (ME, OH, OK)

• Comments from States - ME: Specific industry (traffic signals) - OH: Asphalt resurfacing is the biggest issue which is confined to specific areas of the state. - OK: Not currently an issue, but single bids typically occur in rural areas. - VT: Paving in the northeast part of the state is an on-going single bid issue

22

Figure 20: U.S. map representing the type of single bid area

23

12) Does your state publish a bidders list for proposals or plans?

• 35 States responded to question 12 and the result is shown in Figure 21, 22, and 23. • The result of a similar question from 2006 survey was compared but there was no significant

difference.

Figure 21: Availability of a bidders list

We publish a bidders list We do not publish a bidders list

Public availability of the list depends on circumstances

Other

24 (DE, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MI, MN, MT, NV, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, PA,

UT, VA, WA, WI, WY)

3 (OH, TN, Nova Scotia)

2 (AR, VT)

6 (FL, LA, ME, MO, RI, WV)

• Comments from States - FL: Bidders list is available until 2-days before letting. - LA: We publish a plan holders list and a list of prospective bidders. However, not all

bidders inform us that they are interested in bidding. - ME: A list is published but planholders have the option of being listed or not. - MO: MoDOT publishes a planholder's list for each letting, however it is at the contractor's

discretion whether they want to be identified on the planholer's list. - RI: Plan Holders List - VT: published only after there are 4 or more eligible bidders on a project - WV: We publish a bidders list but contractors are only placed on it by request.

24

Figure 22: U.S. map representing availability of a bidders list

Figure 23: Comparison for availability of a bidders list with 2006 survey

Reviewing Bids for Competition

13) Does your state have formal procedures for reviewing bids for competition?

• 36 States and Nova Scotia responded to question 13 and the result is shown in Figure 24 and 25.

• About 92% (34/37) of respondents have a certain type of procedures for reviewing bids for competition.

Figure 24: Formal procedures for reviewing bids for competition

Yes No

We use FHWA's 2004 Guidelines on Preparing Engineer's Estimate, Bid Reviews and Evaluation

Other

25

15 (DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, LA,

MD, MA, MT, NV, NY, OH, UT, VA)

3 (ME, TN, VT)

15 (AR, IA, KS, MN, MO, NJ, NC, ND, OR, PA, RI, WA,

WV, WI, WY)

4 (KY, MI, OK, Nova Scotia)

• Comments from States - KY: KYTC uses the FHWA guide but we have our own informal procedure. - MI: We follow State administrative rules and CFR. - OK: Guidelines developed for ODOT including a joint ODOT/FHWA process review and

FHWA memorandums. - Nova Scotia: Guidelines in Standard Specification

Figure 25: Availability of formal procedures for reviewing bids for competition

26

14) If your state has formal review procedures, please provide a web link if available.

27

• FL: - Procedures

http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/procedures/current/600010001.pdf http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/procedures/current/600010004.pdf http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/procedures/current/600010006.pdf;

- Form http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/forms/informs/60001002.pdf

• UT: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:315 http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=10539204911840567

• VA: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/const/internalprocesses.asp • Nova Scotia: http://www.gov.ns.ca/tran/publications/standard.pdf

28

15) Does your state have formal guidance for reviewing bids for bid unbalancing?


• About 95% (35/37) of respondents have guidance for reviewing bids for bid unbalancing.

Figure 26: Formal guidance for reviewing bids for bid unbalancing

Yes No

We use FHWA's 2004 Guidelines on Preparing Engineer's Estimate, Bid Reviews and Evaluation

Other

16 (FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MT, NV, NY,

OH, UT, VA)

2 (ID, TN)

17 (AR, DE, IA, KS, MN, MO, NJ, NC, ND, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY)

2 (OK, Nova Scotia)

• Comments from States - KY: KYTC uses BAMS/DSS. - ME: Specifications allow for unbalanced but not materially unbalanced. - OK: Guidelines developed for ODOT including a joint ODOT/FHWA process review and

FHWA memorandums. - Nova Scotia: By definition in Standard Specification

29

Figure 27: Availability of formal guidance for reviewing bids for bid unbalancing

30

16) If your state has formal review procedures, please provide a web link if available.

• FL: - Procedures

http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/procedures/current/600010001.pdf http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/procedures/current/600010004.pdf http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/procedures/current/600010006.pdf;

- Form http://procnet.co.dot.state.fl.us/forms/informs/60001002.pdf

• UT: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:3694 (Select 00120 - Bidding Requirements & Conditions), We also reference FHWA's 2004 Guidelines on Preparing Engineer’s Estimate, Bid Reviews and Evaluation

• VA: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/const/internalprocesses.asp

31

Cost Increases

17) Over the past two years, what has been the general trend for construction bid prices in your state?


Figure 28: General trend for construction bid prices

A significant increase in prices

A general increase in prices

No significant change in prices

A general decrease in

prices

A significant decrease in

prices Other

1 (NC)

13 (IA, KY, MO, MT, NJ, NY, ND, OH, TN, UT, VT, WA,

WI)

11 (AR, FL, GA, IN,

MA, MI, MN, PA, RI, VA, WV)

6 (IL, KS, ME, MD, NV, Nova Scotia)

2 (DE, OR)

4 (ID, LA, OK, WY)

• Comments from States - ID: Prices have gone up but are now back down to 2006 prices, on average. - LA: An overall, very slight increase in prices - MN: [No significant increase] except for oil - OK: Asphalt and steel prices fluctuate month to month, fuel sensitive items such as

earthwork have increased slightly, most other items have been stable for last 2 years. - WY: 2010 prices were down while 2011 prices came back up, so mostly a wash.

32

Figure 29: U.S. map representing general trend for construction bid prices

33

18) If your state has experienced an increase in bid prices, what is the average annual percentage increase in your bid prices for the past six years?

• The average response data from 19 States is shown in Figure 30 and 31.

• WY shows the biggest increase at 18.9% and only FL has a decrease, -1%.

• The 6-year average increase is 5.0% based on responses from 19 States.

• All answers from 37 respondents are attached in the Appendix E.

• The average increase percentage is compared with the previous survey done in 2006 and 2007

in Figure 32.

Figure 30: The average annual percentage increase in bid prices for the past 6-year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 6-year average

12.8% 6.5% 8.1% -3.6% 0.0% 5.4% 4.9%

34

Figure 31: The average annual percentage increase in bid prices (2006~2011)

Figure 32: The average annual percentage increase in bid prices for the past 9-year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 9-year average

5.8% 12.7% 17.1% 12.8% 6.5% 8.1% -3.6% 0.0% 5.4% 7.2%

35

19) Is the reported average annual increase based on:

• 25 States responded to question 19 and the result is shown in Figure 33 and 34.

Figure 33: The source of the reported average annual increase The State DOT's construction price

index An estimate of price increases Other

14 (AR, FL, IL, IA, KY, MI, MT, NC, OH,

PA, UT, WA, WI, WY)

8 (LA, MO, NJ, NY, TN, VT, VA, WV)

3 (ID, MN, RI)

• Comments from States - MN: We still do a cost index based on 1986. - MO: This data was not readily available for MO. Ultimately, we took an average %

increase/decrease per a sample group of pay items comprising the 4 major types of work (earthwork, concrete paving, asphalt paving and str. steel).

- OK: Info not available - RI: Weighted Average Unit Prices

Figure 34: U.S. map representing the source of the reported average annual increase

36

20) If data is available, what construction bid items have experienced the most rapid cost increases in the past year?

• 22 States and Nova Scotia responded with data to question 20 and the result is shown in Figure 35.

• All answers from 37 respondents are attached in the Appendix F.

• For some of the highest values, UT experienced a 521% increase in ‘Structural Steel’ costs and WY had a 105% increase in ‘Portland Cement Concrete Paving’ costs in the past year.

• MI shows a decrease in ‘Earthwork’ and ‘Structural Steel’ and MN also shows a decrease in ‘Portland Cement Concrete Paving’.

Figure 35: Bid items with greatest percent cost increases in the past year

Earthwork Asphaltic Concrete Paving Portland Cement Concrete Paving Structural Steel

12% 8% 17% 43%

• Comments from States - ID: metal reinforcing steel 4.5% - LA: Deformed Reinforcing Steel 8.2%, PCC Paving -5.54% - MI: Reinforcement Steel 4.0% - MT: The 43% was experienced 2010 – 2011 - OH: Pavement Marking 17.2% - RI: Fuel - WY: Asphalt Cements 9.0 %

37

21) Which of the following construction price adjustment clauses do you typically use?

• The answers related to the price adjustment clauses are shown in Figure 36 through 40

including answers from the 2006 survey for comparison.

• The most common price adjustment clauses are used for fuel and asphalt cement.

Figure 36: Construction price adjustment clauses used by states

Price adjustment clauses Number of States in 2012 Number of States in 2006

Fuel

31 (DE, FL, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD,

MA, MN, MO, MT, NV, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, Nova

Scotia)

29

Asphalt cement

30 (DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MO, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT,

VT, VA, WA, WV, WY, Nova Scotia)

23

Portland cement 3 (MA, WV, Nova Scotia) N/A

Steel 11

(IL, MA, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, VA, WA, WY)

10

Other 3 (AR, MI, MO) N/A

• Comments from States in the 2012 survey

- AR: No construction price adjustment clauses used. - MI: None - MO: seal coat and under sealing - OK: Occasionally include fuel price adjustment clauses for high volume earthwork projects.

38



39



40

Material Shortages

22) Have you experienced project delays resulting from material shortages of any of the following in the past 2 or 3 years?

• The answers about project delays resulting from material shortages in the past 2 or 3 years

are shown in Figure 41 including answers from 2006 survey for comparison.

• Major materials such as Portland cement, asphalt, or steel were not a problem, however some

States commented pavement marking materials as a shortage.

Figure 41: Project delays resulting from material shortages

Material shortage Number of States responding in 2012

Number of States responding in 2006

Portland cement - 10

Asphalt 2 (LA, OK) 7

Structural steel - 9

Reinforcing steel - 5

Fuel - 2

Other 9 8

• Comments from States with other material shortage in the 2012 survey - FL: Thermoplastic materials - ID: paint for pavement markings - LA: Resin for Striping and Stone shortages as a result of the Mississippi flooding quarries. - NC: Pavement Marking Materials - ND: pavement marking paint - OK: Traffic striping material - TN: Pavement Marking Materials in 2010 - UT: 1) Fiber Optic Cable coming from Japan following the Tsunami, and 2) Striping Paint - WA: Fly Ash

• 6 States commented that they did not have material shortages in the past 2 or 3 years.

41

23) Have you granted contract time extensions for any specific material shortages in the past 2 or 3 years?


• About 16% (5/32) of respondents have extended a contract due to material shortages in the past 2 or 3 years.

• Result for the same question in 2006 survey is compared below.

Figure 42: Contract time extensions due to material shortages

Yes No Other

5 (LA, NC, ND, TN, UT)

27 (AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY,

ME, MI, MO, MT, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI,

WY, Nova Scotia)

-

• Comments from States - ND: pavement marking paint - TN: A couple of case-by-case based on pavement marking shortages

42

Figure 43: Contract time extensions due to material shortages

43

Initiatives by Your State

24) If your state has experienced reductions in competition and/or significant cost increases in bids, what initiatives have you implemented or considered to address these issues?

• 36 States and Nova Scotia responded to question 24 and the result is shown in Figure 44. • Initiatives frequently used by States are ‘Bundling projects’, ‘Using price adjustment clauses

for certain materials’, and ‘Rejecting non-competitive bids and re-advertising’.

Figure 44: Initiatives implemented or considered to address issues of reductions in competition Initiatives Number of States

Bundling projects (placing several smaller projects together) 17

Using price adjustment clauses for certain materials 16

Rejecting non-competitive bids and re-advertising 15

Balancing work type in each letting 12

Splitting large projects into smaller projects 12 Using alternate materials (e.g., concrete paving vs. asphalt paving,

etc.) 12

Using recycled materials 10

Reducing contractor's risk 9

Updating construction cost estimate data 8

Conducting more frequent bid openings 7

Allowing more time for bid advertisement 7

Conducting cost estimate training 7

Conducting additional pre-bid meetings/advertising 5

Providing areas for plants and contractor yards 5

Deferring project lettings 4

Revising "payment for stockpiled material" provisions 3

Changing cost estimating procedures 2 Providing state-furnished material (e.g., fabricated structural steel)

on selected projects 2

Using state forces (maintenance crews) to perform paving work where competition is lacking 2

Using state aggregate sources where industry sources are not competitive 2

Other 2

Revising prequalification capacity restrictions 0

44

• Comments from States in the 2012 survey

- MO: Over the last few years, MoDOT has implemented additional innovative contracting methods, including add alternates and alternate technical concepts. An ATC allows contractors to propose alternate designs for approval prior to the bid opening.

- UT: Price + Time Contracting

45

25) Of the above initiatives, which three have been the most effective (or which three does your state consider to be the most effective) in fostering competition and controlling costs? (Select three)

• 25 States and Nova Scotia responded to question 25 and the result is shown in Figure 45 as most frequent initiatives are colored.

Figure 45: Most effective initiatives in fostering competition and controlling costs Initiatives Number of States

Rejecting non-competitive bids and re-advertising 10

Using alternate materials (e.g., concrete paving vs. asphalt paving, etc.) 10

Balancing work type in each letting 9

Splitting large projects into smaller projects 8

Bundling projects (placing several smaller projects together) 8

Using price adjustment clauses for certain materials 7

Reducing contractor's risk 5

Allowing more time for bid advertisement 4

Conducting more frequent bid openings 3

Using recycled materials 3

Updating construction cost estimate data 2

Using state aggregate sources where industry sources are not competitive 2

Revising "payment for stockpiled material" provisions 1

Deferring project lettings 1

Changing cost estimating procedures 1

Conducting cost estimate training 1 Using state forces (maintenance crews) to perform paving work where

competition is lacking 1

Other 1

Conducting additional pre-bid meetings/advertising 0

Revising prequalification capacity restrictions 0 Providing state-furnished material (e.g., fabricated structural steel) on

selected projects 0

Providing areas for plants and contractor yards 0

46

Appendix A: The number of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011

State Calendar Year

Total Number of Construction Contracts Let

Number of Contracts with 3 or more bids


2 bids


1 bid

Average number of bids for all projects

AR

2006 173 84 49 40 2.6 2007 202 108 52 42 2.8 2008 187 103 53 31 3.0 2009 222 132 52 38 3.3 2010 230 127 71 32 3.1 2011 223 120 73 30 3.1

DE

2006 75 65 10 0 4.0 2007 70 63 5 2 4.0 2008 67 64 1 2 5.0 2009 67 62 4 1 6.0 2010 60 58 2 0 6.0 2011 66 60 6 0 5.0

FL

2006 388 222 118 48 2.7 2007 382 301 63 18 4.0 2008 352 313 27 12 5.3 2009 460 426 27 7 5.6 2010 438 407 19 12 5.4 2011 415 376 29 10 5.1

GA

2006 440 231 149 60 2.7 2007 340 191 105 44 3.6 2008 263 208 37 18 4.8 2009 382 312 56 14 5.0 2010 292 223 53 16 4.4 2011 276 216 54 6 4.1

ID

2006 72 25 26 21 2.3 2007 111 49 43 19 2.5 2008 104 77 23 4 3.9 2009 116 103 12 1 4.8 2010 187 167 14 6 4.6 2011 119 105 12 2 4.9

IL

2006 804 442 230 132 2.9 2007 925 504 277 144 3.0 2008 1017 610 278 129 3.4 2009 1563 1032 342 189 3.9 2010 1447 955 302 190 3.9 2011 1015 738 196 81 4.1

IN 2006 574 285 206 83 2.8 2007 521 281 183 56 3.2

47

2008 574 379 142 51 3.7 2009 777 561 172 44 4.1 2010 577 464 103 9 4.3 2011 445 372 60 12 4.6

IA

2006 617 465 111 41 3.9 2007 540 409 90 41 4.1 2008 576 407 123 46 3.8 2009 862 624 141 97 4.1 2010 687 587 60 40 4.7 2011 693 575 65 53 4.5

KS

2006 373 250 92 31 3.3 2007 308 249 50 9 3.8 2008 290 223 51 16 3.7 2009 333 277 45 11 4.2 2010 335 268 52 15 4.1 2011 334 256 56 22 4.3

KY

2006 550 184 124 242 2.1 2007 744 203 205 336 2.1 2008 558 210 106 242 2.5 2009 674 272 121 281 2.5 2010 746 343 124 279 2.8 2011 697 324 117 256 2.7

LA

2006 429 190 146 93 2.5 2007 446 214 150 82 2.8 2008 454 279 120 55 3.3 2009 414 300 87 27 3.7 2010 477 353 90 34 4.1 2011 398 321 70 7 4.7

ME

2006 119 57 35 27 2.8 2007 108 51 35 22 3.0 2008 109 56 33 20 3.1 2009 146 89 32 25 3.6 2010 177 103 51 23 3.5 2011 134 80 42 12 3.8

MD

2006 175 127 41 7 3.7 2007 130 97 26 7 4.2 2008 153 124 21 8 5.0 2009 180 157 21 2 6.4 2010 115 87 23 5 5.4 2011 211 180 29 2 4.7

MA 2006 71 62 6 3 4.6 2007 150 130 14 6 5.1

48

2008 283 231 42 10 4.8 2009 264 230 25 9 6.1 2010 258 242 15 1 6.6 2011 240 200 32 8 5.7

MI

2006 838 731 98 8 5.0 2007 1066 889 164 13 5.3 2008 787 679 92 16 5.4 2009 843 674 157 12 5.9 2010 998 783 194 21 5.5 2011 721 559 148 14 5.1

MN

2006 177 141 30 6 4.3 2007 162 133 20 9 4.5 2008 163 131 23 9 4.0 2009 287 231 38 18 4.2 2010 225 177 35 13 4.2 2011 220 165 36 19 3.8

MO

2006 340 240 78 22 3.4 2007 314 242 47 25 3.2 2008 302 227 44 31 2.9 2009 417 318 78 21 3.0 2010 357 275 66 16 3.2 2011 331 251 61 19 3.3

MT

2006 101 48 38 15 2.6 2007 84 51 22 11 2.9 2008 108 65 34 9 3.2 2009 130 95 25 10 3.8 2010 117 101 10 6 4.1 2011 129 96 24 9 3.7

NV

2006 29 18 8 3 3.0 2007 14 9 2 3 3.3 2008 19 19 0 0 5.2 2009 38 37 1 0 6.1 2010 31 30 1 0 5.3 2011 34 30 2 2 4.1

NJ

2006 51 45 5 1 4.0 2007 58 46 7 5 5.0 2008 66 60 5 1 5.0 2009 49 43 5 1 4.0 2010 45 41 3 1 5.0 2011 41 37 2 2 4.0

NY 2006 316 243 60 13 3.7 2007 296 218 61 17 3.7

49

2008 276 217 45 14 4.2 2009 339 295 34 10 4.9 2010 274 241 24 9 5.1 2011 245 222 14 9 5.9

NC

2006 165 101 45 19 3.5 2007 211 146 46 19 3.9 2008 258 209 31 18 5.1 2009 251 197 42 12 5.2 2010 189 169 18 2 5.2 2011 201 158 36 7 4.3

ND

2006 170 132 34 4 3.6 2007 161 121 36 4 4.0 2008 154 122 28 4 4.1 2009 253 196 50 7 3.6 2010 244 192 37 11 4.2 2011 222 167 42 13 3.9

OH

2006 556 386 122 48 3.9 2007 555 387 122 46 4.0 2008 651 455 138 58 4.1 2009 661 469 121 71 4.6 2010 723 546 123 54 4.3 2011 767 550 142 75 4.2

OK

2006 398 242 102 54 3.1 2007 367 204 94 69 2.9 2008 363 221 87 55 3.1 2009 464 352 81 31 4.1 2010 486 401 62 23 4.6 2011 379 302 57 20 4.2

OR

2006 98 63 29 6 3.3 2007 91 69 15 7 4.2 2008 89 85 0 4 6.6 2009 179 167 11 1 5.7 2010 148 136 10 2 6.8 2011 105 97 8 0 6.7

PA

2006 703 477 170 56 4.0 2007 621 493 96 32 4.0 2008 716 633 75 8 5.0 2009 1045 921 120 4 5.0 2010 884 799 72 13 6.0 2011 733 671 55 7 6.0

RI 2006 38 26 7 5 3.0 2007 27 18 4 5 3.0

50

2008 42 26 5 11 3.0 2009 67 51 11 5 5.0 2010 63 61 0 2 5.0 2011 77 57 14 6 4.0

TN

2006 167 93 42 32 2.9 2007 149 83 41 25 3.0 2008 170 81 51 38 2.9 2009 363 210 91 62 3.4 2010 315 161 94 60 3.0 2011 315 172 91 52 3.0

UT

2006 143 68 40 35 2.6 2007 123 48 50 25 2.6 2008 147 103 26 18 4.1 2009 220 176 35 9 4.6 2010 155 122 29 4 4.0 2011 178 124 45 9 3.6

VT

2006 60 40 13 7 3.5 2007 53 40 8 5 3.7 2008 58 39 14 5 4.0 2009 104 70 22 12 4.0 2010 77 56 11 10 4.2 2011 64 42 18 4 4.5

VA

2006 374 213 90 71 3.0 2007 420 239 96 85 3.0 2008 429 249 95 85 4.0 2009 312 203 58 51 5.0 2010 457 261 94 102 4.0 2011 493 302 98 93 4.0

WA

2006 138 69 54 15 3.0 2007 169 100 56 13 3.4 2008 149 120 24 5 4.4 2009 185 150 26 9 5.2 2010 159 142 17 0 5.8 2011 156 129 21 6 5.4

WV

2006 432 202 95 135 2.6 2007 437 232 116 89 3.0 2008 475 272 134 69 3.0 2009 409 283 80 46 4.0 2010 485 288 142 55 3.6 2011 427 257 110 60 3.4

WI 2006 404 252 101 51 3.3 2007 319 223 63 33 3.9

51

2008 318 207 66 45 3.8 2009 380 249 71 58 3.9 2010 470 302 99 69 3.9 2011 306 219 50 37 4.1

WY

2006 78 46 19 13 2.8 2007 105 56 32 17 2.5 2008 94 60 23 11 3.5 2009 124 112 8 4 5.2 2010 108 97 10 1 5.2 2011 95 83 9 3 4.6

Nova Scotia

2006 175 - - - - 2007 144 - - - - 2008 165 - - - - 2009 165 - - - - 2010 145 - - - - 2011 160 - - - -

36 States Average

2006 295 182 73 40 3.3 2007 299 192 69 38 3.5 2008 301 210 58 32 4.0 2009 377 280 64 33 4.5 2010 362 271 59 32 4.6 2011 320 239 53 27 4.4

52

Appendix B: The value of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011

State Calendar Year

Total Value of Construction Contracts Let

($millions)

Total Value of Contracts with 3 or

more bids ($millions)

Total Value of Contracts with 2 bids ($millions)

Total Value of Contracts with 1 bid

($millions)

AR

2006 377 163 192 22 2007 375 268 61 46 2008 374 254 82 38 2009 498 390 75 33 2010 568 432 100 36 2011 548 458 73 17

DE

2006 107 96 11 0 2007 176 165 11 0 2008 128 126 2 1 2009 109 104 4 1 2010 112 109 3 0 2011 147 136 12 0

FL

2006 2,420 1,459 589 372 2007 5,513 1,849 407 3,257 2008 2,031 1,612 130 290 2009 2,962 1,790 425 746 2010 1,622 1,426 41 154 2011 1,822 1,497 67 258

GA

2006 2,699 1,699 800 200 2007 2,393 887 1,128 379 2008 673 576 73 24 2009 854 715 104 35 2010 678 533 120 25 2011 953 795 145 13

ID

2006 174 89 60 285 2007 276 132 104 40 2008 360 229 125 6 2009 389 381 7 1 2010 289 276 7 6 2011 280 270 8 2

IL

2006 1,378 430 371 577 2007 1,157 559 368 230 2008 1,260 818 279 162 2009 2,168 1,277 536 355 2010 2,435 1,205 727 503 2011 1,890 1,435 328 127

IN 2006 1,373 647 429 298

53

2007 1,370 806 357 208 2008 1,529 1,047 317 165 2009 1,415 1,189 202 24 2010 1,582 1,434 138 10 2011 1,277 1,144 73 60

IA

2006 570 368 114 89 2007 498 386 86 26 2008 667 503 129 35 2009 1,043 658 242 144 2010 620 540 58 22 2011 781 625 87 69

KS

2006 643 403 185 55 2007 355 302 35 17 2008 474 414 50 9 2009 655 605 45 5 2010 480 421 44 14 2011 671 552 68 51

KY

2006 1,125 272 437 416 2007 1,437 296 434 707 2008 453 258 47 148 2009 888 492 169 227 2010 833 523 141 169 2011 1,062 714 141 207

LA

2006 1,771 687 982 102 2007 1,441 713 199 529 2008 1,499 779 672 48 2009 1,011 749 174 87 2010 1,043 837 183 23 2011 677 573 101 4

ME

2006 191 104 48 40 2007 148 91 28 30 2008 194 77 93 23 2009 265 151 84 30 2010 326 221 76 29 2011 173 105 61 7

MD

2006 446 300 126 21 2007 448 326 91 30 2008 379 307 48 23 2009 463 391 65 7 2010 287 240 42 5 2011 460 406 49 4

MA 2006 342 315 25 2

54

2007 525 497 19 9 2008 896 748 116 33 2009 923 852 67 4 2010 743 729 13 2 2011 699 591 104 4

MI

2006 1,280 1,170 102 8 2007 1,572 1,168 399 6 2008 1,251 1,076 158 18 2009 1,379 1,228 140 11 2010 1,261 1,059 189 12 2011 998 771 210 17

MN

2006 377 341 21 15 2007 635 312 305 19 2008 457 402 44 11 2009 658 577 56 26 2010 713 589 109 15 2011 491 420 51 21

MO

2006 894 638 240 16 2007 916 845 61 10 2008 692 611 69 13 2009 1,107 895 151 61 2010 677 582 75 20 2011 724 617 71 37

MT

2006 258 184 57 17 2007 256 180 65 11 2008 304 229 56 18 2009 285 237 42 6 2010 397 365 25 7 2011 301 236 55 10

NV

2006 627 201 425 1 2007 153 119 31 3 2008 170 170 0 0 2009 233 223 10 0 2010 286 286 0 0 2011 363 347 11 5

NJ

2006 600 482 913 0 2007 531 516 14 1 2008 707 707 0 0 2009 837 835 2 0 2010 448 432 14 1 2011 254 251 2 1

NY 2006 1,272 834 412 26

55

2007 1,290 816 245 228 2008 1,384 1,064 247 73 2009 1,942 1,840 77 24 2010 1,437 1,374 37 26 2011 1,033 996 34 3

NC

2006 856 560 247 50 2007 1,175 795 257 122 2008 1,863 1,582 130 151 2009 955 798 114 43 2010 1,733 1,633 83 17 2011 1,570 1,336 213 20

ND

2006 266 5 2007 249 13 2008 274 3 2009 319 6 2010 400 21 2011 559 20

OH

2006 1,521 1,174 300 48 2007 1,201 1,005 145 52 2008 1,115 892 158 64 2009 1,482 1,257 131 94 2010 1,581 1,038 469 73 2011 1,447 952 398 96

OK

2006 600 341 177 82 2007 631 337 149 144 2008 690 406 230 54 2009 1,249 855 272 123 2010 840 726 77 36 2011 760 623 118 19

OR

2006 641 383 245 14 2007 361 286 53 22 2008 393 310 0 84 2009 463 446 15 2 2010 367 348 15 4 2011 209 202 7 0

PA

2006 1,545 1,080 364 101 2007 1,895 1,569 244 82 2008 1,879 1,760 103 16 2009 2,670 2,414 254 2 2010 2,191 2,053 117 21 2011 1,892 1,760 127 5

RI 2006 93 72 18 3

56

2007 28 18 9 2 2008 100 89 5 6 2009 275 259 11 4 2010 188 188 0 1 2011 124 113 6 5

TN

2006 639 412 160 67 2007 426 308 54 63 2008 644 452 96 95 2009 1,110 760 206 145 2010 903 558 157 189 2011 940 587 114 240

UT

2006 704 352 307 45 2007 303 137 124 42 2008 1,028 885 36 106 2009 2,457 2,376 70 11 2010 819 456 357 6 2011 738 624 94 19

VT

2006 86 59 18 10 2007 121 80 21 20 2008 109 63 34 12 2009 206 122 36 48 2010 182 98 34 50 2011 112 87 13 13

VA

2006 925 665 124 136 2007 850 618 112 120 2008 796 483 131 182 2009 817 454 102 261 2010 1,268 774 116 378 2011 1,236 666 221 349

WA

2006 382 249 104 30 2007 777 628 94 55 2008 759 716 38 4 2009 1,099 1,007 83 10 2010 744 728 16 0 2011 1,270 1,249 16 6

WV

2006 544 365 120 59 2007 581 258 157 165 2008 650 496 78 76 2009 528 424 50 54 2010 512 391 70 51 2011 521 395 61 65

WI 2006 685 400 184 101

57

2007 645 425 134 86 2008 886 589 141 156 2009 1,134 799 133 201 2010 1,418 960 261 196 2011 1,092 815 185 91

WY

2006 222 171 39 12 2007 295 132 137 26 2008 327 217 101 8 2009 383 361 13 9 2010 279 268 8 2 2011 245 237 5 3

Nova Scotia

2006 - - - - 2007 - - - - 2008 - - - - 2009 - - - - 2010 323 - - - 2011 242 - - -

36 States Average

2006 795 490 256 92 2007 861 509 175 189 2008 761 598 115 60 2009 979 797 119 79 2010 841 681 112 59 2011 787 645 95 52

58

Appendix C: The data for the average variance from the engineer’s estimate for various levels of competition in 2011

State 1-bid projects (%) 2-bid projects (%) 3-bid projects (%) 4-bid projects (%) 5-or more bid projects (%)

AR 1.8 -4.5 -9.5 -5.6 -9.8 DE 0.0 13.0 3.0 11.0 21.0 FL -8.0 4.1 -0.5 -1.7 -5.3 GA 5.7 -3.9 -5.4 -11.1 -7.8 ID -5.0 -10.0 -5.0 -16.0 -18.0 IL 0.4 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 IN 72.0 17.0 20.0 19.0 20.0 IA 4.8 -8.2 -8.2 -7.5 -10.2 KS 4.4 -3.7 -5.5 -7.2 3.2 KY 1.0 -15.0 -11.0 -15.0 -18.0 LA 23.3 1.9 -5.5 -8.0 -18.7 ME 6.5 -2.8 -4.9 -10.1 -18.4 MD 0.1 6.5 8.5 7.9 13.3 MA 8.0 9.0 -14.0 MI 8.4 -1.1 -4.2 -3.7 -8.9 MN MO -3.3 -4.3 -6.5 -4.3 -9.4 MT -0.6 9.3 -3.5 -4.6 -9.8 NV 6.4 11.6 4.9 15.8 11.9 NJ 7.0 -32.0 -14.0 -9.4 -23.0 NY 21.0 32.0 -1.0 -6.0 -15.0 NC -2.5 -1.4 -3.5 -5.8 -7.8 ND 33.0 21.0 OH 5.3 -1.6 -2.2 -5.0 -7.1 OK 4.1 4.4 -3.1 -9.0 -12.9 OR 0.0 21.0 -9.0 -10.0 -13.0 PA 24.0 2.5 -3.1 -2.6 -6.9 RI TN 4.4 1.3 -3.0 -1.5 -7.6 UT -5.4 -10.0 -2.9 0.6 2.1 VT 2.0 3.6 5.8 6.7 8.8 VA -7.0 -7.0 -15.0 -10.0 -16.0 WA 16.0 -10.9 -9.7 -14.1 -17.6 WV 7.5 -5.2 0.5 -5.7 -9.6 WI 3.8 -7.6 -5.3 0.0 -12.3 WY 16.0 -1.1 -2.8 -6.2 -10.1

Nova S. Average 7.5 0.5 -3.8 -4.0 -7.0

59

Appendix D: The percentage of single bids received for each type in 2011

State Asphalt resur-facing

Recons-truction

Major Projects

Major Bridge

Specialty Projects / Transpor-

tation Enhance-

ments

Maintenance Projects Other Comments

AR This information is not tracked.

DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 none received single bids

FL 0 0 0 0 50 10 40% other projects

GA 2 0 0 0 0 0 All 6 projects in 2011 had only 1

bid. 5 of those were resurfacing and 1 intersection improvement

ID

IL 90 0 0 0 0 10

IN 0 4 0 0 0 14

IA 27 2 0 0 0 0 The only significant one bidder work type is asphalt resurfacing

KS 14 1 7 0 9 5

KY 60 15 0 0 10 5

LA 1 0 0 0 1 0 Less than 2% of all bids were Single Bids.

ME 9 0 0 0 39 0 Most of our traffic signal project are single bids

MD 61 3 3 0 26 7

MA 0 0 0 0 100 0

MI < 1 0 0 0 0 < 1

MN

MO 1 0 0 0 0 0

MT 16 24 0 0 22 0 Montana doesn't have any major

projects. We had 10% regular bridge projects.

NV 0 0 0 0 100 0 100% of the single bids were received on smaller specialty

projects.

60

NJ

NY 0 33 0 0 33 33

NC 5 3 0 0 0 0

ND 8 46 8 0 0 38

OH 49 24 0 0 14 13

OK

Don't have this info but only 5% of total projects received single bids. Most single bids were on asphalt

resurfacing, maintenance, or specialty projects.

OR

PA

There were only 7 of 733 (0.95%) statewide with single bids. 4 of

these 7 were categorized as resurfacing.

RI 17 0 0 33 0 50 The Maintenance projects consisted of guardrail replacement contracts.

TN 23 0 0 2 0 0

UT 0 0 0 0 0 10

VT 18 0 0 0 0 10

VA 58 14 0 2 1 25 None

WA 33 0 0 0 50 17

WV 22 6 12 4 8 14 4.3 % are other types

WI 29 2 4 0 17 18 Rehab projects = 14%

WY 2 0 0 0 0 10

Nova S. Currently database access/query

issues. Unable to provide this information at this time.

Average 19 6 1 1 17 10

61

Appendix E: The average annual percentage increase in the bid prices for the past 6 years

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 6-year average

AR DE FL 18.2 7.4 -17.3 -11.5 -11.2 8.3 -1.0 GA ID IL 6.5 6.1 9.0 -9.0 -3.0 2.0 1.9 IN IA 12.2 9.5 15.6 0.2 -4.1 8.5 7.0 KS KY 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 LA 6.6 -3.7 -6.8 4.7 0.2 ME MD MA MI 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.7 MN MO -2.4 -7.8 12.8 19.2 0.3 3.0 4.2 MT 21.5 11.9 8.5 -4.2 0.4 6.0 7.4 NV NJ NY 9.0 5.0 12.0 -5.0 5.0 5.0 5.2 NC 18.0 2.0 12.0 -24.0 15.0 6.0 4.8 ND OH 12.6 6.9 7.7 -6.1 2.6 4.2 4.7 OK OR PA 14.1 4.2 15.0 -4.9 1.3 -2.0 4.6 RI TN 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 UT 22.2 16.8 9.1 -11.4 -4.0 13.4 7.7 VT 9.0 2.0 0.0 6.0 4.3 VA 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.3 WA 29.6 0.9 4.8 -8.1 4.0 5.6 6.1 WV WI 9.1 0.4 24.7 -6.8 -2.6 7.9 5.5 WY 25.4 30.6 10.3 -4.4 -10.6 9.2 10.1

Nova S. Average 12.8% 6.5% 8.1% -3.6% 0.0% 5.4% 4.9%

62

Appendix F: The average approximate percent increases in the past year

State Earthwork Asphaltic Concrete

Paving

Portland Cement

Concrete Paving

Structural Steel Other

AR 4 12 DE FL 11 8 21 34 GA ID 26 7 metal reinforcing steel 4.5% IL 11 7 7 5 IN IA 10 10 1 20 KS KY LA 6 6 8.2 ME MD MA MI -11 1 9 -15 4.0% Reinforcement Steel MN 4 4 -13 0 concrete paving went down by 13.4% MO 1 2 18 MT 27 8 43 7 The 43% was experienced 2010 - 2011 NV NJ NY 8 2 2 NC 4 9 5 ND OH 0 1 8 28 Pavement Marking 17.2% OK Info not available OR PA 10 RI 0 8 0 0 Fuel TN UT 92 16 40 521 VT VA 15 WA 4 18 20 WV not available WI 8 20 14 34 WY 3 105 8 Asphalt Cements 9.0 %

Nova S. 0 0 0 10 Average 12 8 17 43

63

Date post:	20-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

May 2012 - American Association of State Highway and...

Documents