ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design

2018 Nomination Template

Project Nomination Deadline: March 5, 2018District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:

March 23, 2018

transportation.ohio.gov www.acecohio.org

Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov

The nomination process has two steps:1) Consultants and/or ODOT Employees complete a draft nomination using this Word template

o Draft nominations (in MS Word format) are to be emailed to the respective ODOT District Capital Program Administrator (see the map and table below) by Monday, March 5, 2018

Please save this file using unique name(s) for your nomination(s) to avoid confusion and overwriting issues. Completed document should be no more than 25 total pages, maximum (not including the embedded picture

pages). All requested images should be included using the Picture fields available with the specific questions. Do not submit hard copies of any nomination materials, attach additional documents and do not send CD-

ROMs. Many entry fields in this form accept ‘Rich Text’ formatted material, but reformatting directly in the fields is

limited/restricted due to the templated nature of this presentation. Copying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text, indents, font size, etc., from other unrestricted Word files or other documents is possible and acceptable.

2) District Capital Program Administrators use this portal link (ODOT Intranet Only) to submit pre-screened/completed nomination Word format document(s) by Friday, March 23, 2018

o Please save file(s) using unique name(s) for each nomination to avoid confusion and overwriting issues.o Each district may submit a maximum of two (2) submissions per category for final review

Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov

ODO

T DISTRICT

D-1: Chris Hughes(419) 999-6901

chris.hughes@dot.ohio.gov

D-2: Mike Gramza(419) 373-4466

mike.gramza@dot.ohio.gov

D-3: Bob Weaver(419) 207-7158

b o b . w e a v e r@ d o t . oh i o . g ov

D-4: Gery Noirot(330) 786-2270

gery.noirot@dot.ohio.govD-5: Jason Sturgeon

(740) 323-5100j as o n .s t u r ge o n @ d o t . o h io . gov

D-6: Thom Slack(740) 833-8340

th o m .sla c k @ d o t . o h i o .g o v D-7: Matt Parrill(937) 497-6802

m a t t. par r i l l @ d o t . o h io. gov

D-8: Stefan Spinosa(513) 933-6639

st e f a n .s p i nos a @ d o t. o h i o .g o v D-9: Christopher

Pridemore(740) 774-9067

D-10: Eric Reed(740) 568-3951

eric.reed@dot.ohio.govD-11: Nick Susich

(330) 308-3996nick.susich@dot.ohio.gov

D-12: Greg Kronstain(216) 584-2166

gregory.kronstain@dot.ohio.gov

Project Nomination Form

Project Name: FRA-23-15.56

Project PID: 88610

Consultant Agreement No.: 17157

County or Municipality: Franklin

ODOT District: ODOT District 6

Consultant Name: EMH&T

Category for which project is being nominated Category 1: Construction Value - $0 to $5,000,000

Construction Value $1.4 million

Construction Project Number 17-0023

Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion

PS&E: 10/20/2016, Sale: 2/16/2017, Construction Completion Spring 2018

Name of Organization Submitting ODOT District 6

Contact person for award-related material/submittal (Name, email, phone,

mailing address)

Becky Wagner, HYPERLINK "mailto:rebecca.wagner@dot.ohio.gov"rebecca.wagner@dot.ohio.gov, 740-833-8183, 400 E. William St., Delaware, Ohio 43015

1

Region Contact Person and their role Region Contact Person and their role

Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus

(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.

Design Consultant: EMH&T (Craig Schrader, Ryan Ely)Contractor: Shelly & Sands (Paul Baker, Superintendent)ODOT Construction Engineering: Zac Amnah, Stephen JohnsonODOT Design Project Manager: Becky Wagner

Award Ceremony Information:

Person(s) accepting award at ceremony (Name, Email, phone)

Craig Schrader, EMH&T, HYPERLINK "mailto:cschrader@emht.com"cschrader@emht.com, 614-775-4632

Names to show on certificate, up to 6 persons and their

companies or roles

EMH&T: Craig Schrader, Ryan Ely Shelly & Sands: Paul BakerODOT: Zac Amnah, Stephen Johnson, Becky Wagner

One JPG image to be used on certificate

2

Executive Summary:

Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology

The primary goal of the project was to rehabilitate the existing filled arch bridge in order to extend its useful life. Due to the satisfactory general appraisal inspection rating of “6A”, and since the bridge is currently individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, replacement of the entire bridge was immediately dismissed. The replacement of the existing bridge railing with a more aesthetically pleasing historic railing was a top priority given the feedback from the local groups in the area.

Highlight any unique aspects of the project

The existing bridge was built in 1921 and rehabilitation and resortoration of the decorative nature of the historic structure was important to the adjacent community. Coordination with community groups on the final concrete railing types, textures, and colors was performed to ensure the final appearance met the desired aesthetics for the rehabilitated filled arch. Due to the urban location of the project, numerous utilities were located within the arch fill material and required significant coordination with their respective ownership. Water, gas, communication, and electric lines had to be accommodated with the project coordination and phasing. Most notable were efforts required to accommodate the existing 16” diameter water main owned by the City of Columbus and the buried 138 kV oil cooled AEP electric transmission line. Due to uncertainty on the condition of the 16” water main, it was not acceptable to expose while active during construction. Coordination with the City was used to outline a scheme, which would require phase construction to perform a relocation of the line to the east, thus limiting outages to only cutover time periods and greatly limiting the risk of failure of the aged infrastructure. The existing 138 kV electric line could not be relocated and was sensitive to movement, thus a prefabricated steel truss system was used to suspend the facility in place as work was proceeding on the east side. The steel truss was also used to suspend an existing AT&T duct bank.

3

Judging Criteria:

A. Project Development Process

1 Project development schedule maintained

a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual

Original: 9/13/12 to 9/18/15Actual: 9/13/12 to 10/26/16

2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process

Identification of conflicting issues and thorough communication to resolve the conflicts was present throughout the project.

3 Cooperative and effective project management

Project participants functioned as a team, to advance the project.

4 CES Score for project 88%

5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee $330,000, total, including modsb. Modifications – Scope and Fee _

B. Plan and Contract Quality

1 Project bid cost relative to budget estimates as a measure of fiscal planning

Eng Estimate: $1,384,536,54 Bid Award: $1,396,154.68

2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on

project(s)99

b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let

Approximately 80

4

3 Contract Change Ordersa. Number and value of change orders.

Explain why changes were neededTen change orders, ranging in value from $0 to $56,000. Changes were needed for time extensions, additional paving & patching, unforeseen site conditions and water line force account work.

b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed

Some change orders were required to address differing site conditions.

c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due to CCO's and quantity revisions

$172,000

d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost

12%

4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued prior to

letting3

b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda

Plan sheet revisions, bidding delay, deletion of waterline contingency bid items.

C. Alignment and Location Design

1 Alternativesa.

Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway

Proposed alignment matched existing.

2 Alignment fita.

Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual driveway slopes, etc.

With our proposed vertical profile closely matching existing, there were minimal impacts to the nearby drives.

5

3 Design practicesa.

Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)

The existing bridge railing had a sub-standard 2’-8” height for pedestrian protection. The proposed railing provides the required 3’-6” barrier height for pedestrian protection.

D. Cost-Effective Design

1 Safety and maintenance-related considerations. Identify this impact in terms of ODOT construction cost, cost to traveling public, or cost to entire public

The existing bridge railing had a sub-standard 2’-8” height for pedestrian protection. The proposed railing provides the required 3’-6” barrier height for pedestrian protection.

2 Project Maintainability The new waterproofing, porous backfill, and replacement of existing fill with controlled density fill will result in better overall drainage of water that may make its way over the top of the arch. This will minimize any future seepage to the top of the arch; therefore, reducing any potential potential deterioration of the arch concrete.

E. Complexity of Design

1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices

Numerous utilities existed over the arch. EMH&T worked with AEP in a separate contract from this project to design a temporary truss system to temporarily support the existing 138 KVA oil static line during construction after the existing fill material over the arch was excavated.

2 New technology and products used N/A

3 Degree of coordination and timing EMH&T and ODOT closely coordinated with AEP, City of Columbus, Columbia Gas, and AT&T from preliminary phase of the project to determine the impacts to their utilities, methods to keep the utilities in service during construction, and locations for relocation of the City of Columbus water line and Columbia Gas line.

6

4 Number and type of controls governing The new pavement over the repaired bridge arch needed to match existing finished grade elevation of the pavement on either end of the bridge.

5 Number of traffic control stages 2 phases of construction.

F. Community Sensitive Design

1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction

The project detour was chosen to minimize disruption of traffic in the area. Signs were posted at the I-71/Hudson exits as well as the surrounding neighborhood, indicating that Indianola Ave. was closed. Pedestrian detours, including access for Glen Echo Park, were identified. Contractor’s temporary access route through one side of the Glen Echo Park area was to remain after the project was complete, for the use of local residents.

2 Preservation of Natural Areas N/A

3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation or Wetlands

N/A

4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features

The existing bridge railing was a standard ODOT tubular railing and concrete parapet installed in the 1960’s which replaced the original aesthetic railing which incorporated aesthetic balusters and columns. After meeting with leaders from the Clintonville Area Commision and the Glen Echo Neighbors Civic Association, it was clearly important to incorporate features of the original railing into the proposed railing design. We were able to come up with a railing design which was crash worthy, incorporates similar aesthetic components of the original railing, and meets the 3’-6” height requirements for pedestrian railing.

5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources Also incorporated into the railing design was a coping similar to the original coping, which futhur enhanced the aesthetic qualities of the

7

bridge.

6 Community Sensitive Design ODOT made a concerted effort to partner with the local community groups from the beginning of the project to initially inform them about the scope of the project and to listen to their concerns regarding both the temporary impacts during construction, as well as the final product. Community groups were interested in the preservation of large bird murals under the bridge arch, which were painted under community auspices to attempt to discourage local graffiti problems.

7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal Maintaining the bridge’s historical character was of utmost importance from the start of design for this project. The bridge is currently listed as a contributing element to the Glen Echo Historic District and has been determined individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Location Map(s)

At least one high-level location map. Please attach an IMAGE FILE of your map here (take and upload a snapshot or screen capture image if the original map is only available as a PDF or other non-compatible image file format)

8

9

10

Photographs

Use the Picture boxes below to add up to 10 digital photos (.JPG or other compatible format) suitable for large-screen display. Before-and-after photos are encouraged. Please use the caption field to provide details on each image.

Road View of Arch Prior to Construction

(photo - 11)

Road View of Arch Upon Construction Completion

(photo - 12)

Aerial View of Site (Excavation Started & Electric Line Support in Place)

(photo - 13)

Underside View of Arch

(photo - 14)

Existing Tie Rods Used to Restrain Wing Walls

(photo - 15)

Lift of LSM Placed Over Arch (Adjacent to Brick Manholes)

(photo - 16)

Close Spacing of Utilities (L to R Communications, Water, Electric, Gas)

(photo - 17)

Excavation for Tie Rod Crossing under Storm, Water, Gas & Communications

(photo - 18)

West Side Excavated with Arch, Tie Rod and Manhole

(photo - 19)

Elevation View of Arch with “Historical” Concrete Railing

(photo - 20)