Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFunding the Windsor Woods, Princess Anne Plaza & The Lakes Design-Build Mega ProjectFunding the Windsor Woods, Princess Anne Plaza & The Lakes Design-Build Mega Project Toni Utterback, PE, City Engineer & Kevin Chatellier, Director of Budget and Management Services November 25, 2025 Why We Are Here •The Windsor Woods, Princess Anne Plaza & The Lakes Design-Build Project (Mega Bundle) has reached a major milestone –the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) proposal was presented to staff by the Design-Build Contractor in late October. •The final negotiated price exceeds the available appropriated funding for these projects. •To move forward, an ordinance is needed to transfer funds from other Flood Protection Program projects and to appropriate new funds to execute the contract for the MEGA Bundle. 2 Agenda •Purpose and Need of Projects •Overview of Projects •Progressive Design-Build Project Delivery •Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Proposal •Flood Protection Program Funding Plan •Next Steps 3 Purpose and Need of Projects 4 Opening Our Eyes •September 1, 2016 – Tropical Storm Hermine •6.5 inches of rain in 3 days •September 19, 2016 – Tropical Storm Julia •10 inches of rain in 3 days •October 8-9, 2016 – Hurricane Matthew • 14 inches of rain in 20 hours 5 2017 – Preliminary Engineering •City Council appropriated funding in the 6-year CIP to Windsor Woods, Princess Anne Plaza, and The Lakes Projects •A Consultant was hired to conduct a detailed engineering analysis to develop a specific program of flood protection measures for the project area. 6 Natural Drainage PatternsTidal Influence Project Area Drainage Patterns 7 THALIA CREEK LONDON BRIDGE CREEK WEST NECK CREEK Challenges and Issues Identified •Elevations in the area are low – most homes have a slab on grade (little fall to the street) •Area is tidally influenced •Increased frequency & severity of storms •Infrastructure is ± 60 years old (Built in the 1960s) •Existing storm drains are inadequate and/or non-existent •Lack of stormwater storage 8 Area of Low Elevation = Highest Risk Risk Assessment Map 9 Major Program Elements •Early Implementation Projects •Tide Gates & Barriers (3 locations) •Large Capacity Pump Stations (2 locations) •Additional Storage Capacity •Storm Pipe Improvements 10 Phase I Phase II •A combination of complementary infrastructure improvements must be implemented to achieve flood protection Phase I Improvements Windsor Woods Pump Station & Barrier North London Bridge Creek Tide Gate, Pump Station, and Barrier Thalia Creek/ Lake Trashmore Improvements South London Bridge Creek Channels, Tide Gate & Barrier Holland Gate 11 Overview of Projects 12 Projects in the Mega Bundle 13 Princess Anne Plaza 4.North London Bridge Creek Pump Station, Tide Gate, and Flood Barriers Windsor Woods 1.Pump Station 2.Flood Barrier 3.Thalia Creek/Lake Trashmore Improvements The Lakes 5.South London Bridge Creek Channels and Tide Gate 6.Flood Barriers 7.Holland Road Gate Windsor Woods Projects 1.Pump Station •800 cubic feet per second (cfs) stormwater Pump Station •Control Building 2.Flood Barrier •Low height Earthen berms and concrete walls along South Boulevard 3.Thalia Creek/Lake Trashmore Improvements •Culverts and Channel Improvements between Lake Trashmore & Lake Windsor 14 Pump Station Control Building Lake WindsorTide Gate (Completed) Princess Anne Plaza Projects 4.North London Bridge Creek Pump Station, Tide Gate, and Barriers •1,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) stormwater Pump Station •Control building •Tide Gate across North London Bridge Creek •Flood Barriers along North London Bridge Creek 15 Control Building Pump Station Tide Gate The Lakes Projects 5.South London Bridge Creek Channels and Tide Gate •Tide gate on London Bridge Creek •Channel improvements to separate The Lakes and Green Run Canals south of Lynnhaven Parkway 6.Flood Barriers •A system of low-height floodwalls, berms, and gates along the East and West Sides of Lynnhaven Parkway 7.Holland Road Gate •Tide gate on the west side of Holland Road 16 Flood Protection Fast-Tracked •In 2018, it was estimated to cost approximately $290 million to build the Phase I Improvements •Completing the projects would have taken nearly 40 years with the funding level provided by the Stormwater Utility fee •Projects had to be prioritized based on the level of flood protection provided •In 2021, the Flood Protection Bond Referendum passed, providing funding to move ahead with all projects •The Bond Referendum Resolution required development of an acquisition strategy to streamline and expedite design and construction •Strategy included the use of a single prime contractor •Strategy also included project bundling 17 •Flood Protection Fast-Tracked Progressive Design-Build Project Delivery 18 Why Progressive Design-Build? Feature Progressive Design-Build (PDB)Traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Process A collaborative, integrated approach with the owner and a single design-build team. A linear, sequential process with distinct phases for design, bidding, and construction. Contracts A single contract with one design-build team.Separate contracts for the designer and the contractor. Team Selection Based on qualifications and Best-Value.Based on the lowest bid price after the design is complete. Cost Certainty Open Book Pricing. GMP is negotiated progressively as the design is developed. The cost is determined from competitively obtained bids received on a completed design. Collaboration High level of collaboration between the owner and the design-builder throughout the process. Minimal collaboration between the design and construction phases. Risk Lower risk of change orders and cost overruns due to early builder involvement. Higher risk of change orders, especially if the lowest-bid contractor lacks complete scope understanding. Owner Involvement Requires active and consistent owner engagement in decision-making. Owner is involved in selecting the designer and contractor but has less involvement during the construction phase. Schedule Faster due to concurrent design and construction activities.Longer due to the sequential nature of the process. 19 How We Chose the Design-Build Team Two-Step Progressive Design-Build (PDB) Procurement Process •Step 1: Team Selection (Qualifications-Based) •Issued Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) •Evaluated submissions and shortlisted three top teams •Step 2: Proposal & Final Selection (Best-Value based) •Issued Request for Proposal (RFP) for technical and price proposals (Phase I design + indirect costs) •Scored proposals on design, approach, and price •Selected team offering the Best Overall Value 20 Two-Step Best Value Selection for Progressive Design-Build Owner Approval Step 1 Step 2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TECHNICAL & PRICE PROPOSAL We Are Here 21 Team Delivering the Mega Bundle 22 Owner’s Team Design-Build Team Owner’s Advisor Owner’s Independent Cost Estimator Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Proposal 23 Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Proposal #Project GMP Amount Funds Available Difference 100487 Windsor Woods Pump Station 111,784,330 32,082,247 (79,702,083) 100605 Windsor Woods Flood Barriers 39,507,511 9,895,085 (29,612,426) 100553 Windsor Woods – Thalia Creek/Lake Trashmore Imp.34,074,886 881,917 (33,192,969) 100517 Princess Anne Plaza – North London Bridge Creek Pump Station 173,267,077 37,300,201 (135,966,876) 100521 The Lakes - South London Bridge Creek Channels & Gate 56,443,942 1,330,111 (55,113,831) 100418 The Lakes - Holland Road Gate 30,607,488 1,861,571 (28,745,917) 100604 The Lakes - Flood Barriers 43,285,009 1,996,847 (41,288,162) Grand Total 488,970,243 85,347,979 (403,622,264) 24 Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Proposal – $488.97 M Original Estimate at 15% design was $564.9 M First GMP Submittal was $508.5 M – a reduction of $56.4 M Further Negotiations occurred – saving another $19.6 M GMP Cost Verification – Open Book Pricing •Checks and Balances: Independent Cost Estimator provided independent estimates at major project milestones (e.g., preliminary design, 30%, 60% submittals) to compare against the design-builder’s estimates. •Cost Reconciliation: The estimator and design-builder worked collaboratively to resolve significant differences. •Oversight & Risk Management: This independent review added an essential layer of oversight, enabling the City to minimize potential risks while ensuring project costs were carefully controlled from start to finish. •Final GMP Review: The Independent Cost Estimator (RK&K) reviewed the GMP Proposal, finding direct construction costs within 3% of his estimate. 25 Proposed Funding Plan #Project Transfer Amount 100603 Sandbridge/New Bridge Intersection Improvements 7,495,002 100551 Stormwater Green Infrastructure – Marsh Restoration Project 34,100,000 100061 Central Resort District - 24th Street Culvert 5,100,000 100062 Central Resort District Drainage Improvements 87,060,259 100548 Pungo Ferry Road Improvements 5,997,395 100596 Church Point / Thoroughgood BMP and Conveyance Improvements 32,139,893 100602 West Neck Creek Bridge 66,763,223 100595 Lake Bradford/Chubb Lake Pump Station & Outfall 33,769,220 100601 First Colonial Road/Oceana Blvd. Drainage Improvements 343,486 Total Transfers From Other Projects 272,768,478 Stormwater Revenue Bonds 41,125,623 General Fund Fund Balance 13,988,208 Authorized/Unappropriated Charter Bonds to be repaid by FPP Fund 11,800,000 Public Facility Revenue Bonds to be repaid by FPP Fund 63,939,955 Total New Appropriation 130,853,786 Grand Total 403,622,264 26 Other Items Not Included in the GMP Description Estimate Owner’s Advisor & Construction Site Representative 10,660,000 Owner’s Contingency 14,070,000 Cemetery Reinterment Costs 1,700,000 Private Utility Adjustments 4,850,000 South London Bridge Creek Water and Sewer Relocation 8,900,000 Thalia Creek Channel Dredging 4,550,000 Chimney Hill Stormwater Inlet Improvements 2,000,000 Total 46,730,000 27 These items will be programmed as needed in the upcoming FY 27 six-year CIP Phase 1 Flood Protection Program Estimate Master Projects September Presentation Estimate ($M)Current Estimate ($M) Windsor Woods/PAP/The Lakes $803 $761 Eastern Shore Drive $109 $109 Lake Bradford/Chubb Lake $181 $181 Central Resort District $113 $113 Southern Rivers Watershed $279 $279 Stormwater Green Infrastructure $55 $55 Linkhorn Bay Drainage Basin $12 $12 TOTAL $1,552 $1,510 28 Flood Protection Program Funding Plan 29 FPP Funding Background •November 2021 Referendum – authorized $567.5 million in General Obligation Bonds •Debt Service supported by 4.1¢ dedication of real estate tax •Removed all future FPP projects from the Enterprise Fund •All $567.5 million in bonds must be issued by 2031 30 $567.5 M – General Obligation Bonds – Financial Plan •November 16, 2021, City Council Resolution to establish a financial plan included the following: “In furtherance of the long-term flood mitigation needs of the City, the general obligation bonding capacity created by the retirement of the debt authorized by the November 2021 referendum shall be reserved exclusively for the issuance of bonds to finance Phase 2 of the City’s flood mitigation program and subsequent sea level rise projects.” •This action, along with the 4.1¢ dedication, created a long-term, sustainable funding source for all FPP projects 31 What does that mean and how is it tracked? 32 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 Total New Bond Issues Amount Spring 2024 118,000,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 35,400,000 Spring 2025 - - - - - - - - Spring 2026 150,970,927 - - 7,548,546 7,548,546 7,548,546 7,548,546 30,194,184 Spring 2027 - - - - - - - - Spring 2028 298,529,073 14,926,454 14,926,454 29,852,908 Total Estimated Principal Retirement 5,900,000 5,900,000 13,448,546 13,448,546 28,375,000 28,375,000 95,447,092 Total Bonding Limits 5,900,000 5,900,000 13,448,546 13,448,546 28,375,000 28,375,000 95,447,092 Charter Bonds Allocated - - - - - - - Total Annual Unallocated Bond Authority 5,900,000 5,900,000 13,448,546 13,448,546 28,375,000 28,375,000 95,447,092 Prior Year Unallocated Bond Authority - - - - - - Cumulative Unallocated Bond Authority 5,900,000 11,800,000 25,248,546 38,697,092 67,072,092 95,447,092 Computation of Referendum Bonding Limits CALENDAR YEAR RETIREMENT Additional Bond Capacity Example 33 Source ATD FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 FY 31 Total Flood Protection Bonds (FPP)567,500,000 - - - - - - 567,500,000 FPP Charter Bonds FY24 Sale - 11,800,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 41,300,000 FPP Charter Bonds FY26 Sale - 7,548,546 7,548,546 7,548,546 7,548,546 7,548,546 37,742,730 FPP Charter Bonds FY28 Sale - - - - 14,926,454 14,926,454 14,926,454 44,779,362 Bond Premium - 16,445,123 - 15,097,093 - 29,852,907 - 61,395,123 Public Facility Revenue Bonds 63,939,955 63,939,955 Total 567,500,000 92,185,078 13,448,546 28,545,639 28,375,000 58,227,907 28,375,000 816,657,170 Next Steps •In accordance with State Code, a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the CIP will be held on December 2, 2025 •The public hearing was advertised in the Virginian Pilot on November 21st and on November 24th. •An ordinance for City Council’s consideration is proposed for the December 9, 2025, City Council agenda. •Execute Contract with Design-build team and issue Notice to Proceed in January 2026 •Complete Design of the projects and begin construction in Q3 2026 •All Construction substantially complete Q3 2031 34 Overall Schedule 35 THANK YOU! DISCUSSION 36 AACE Association For The Advancement Of Cost Engineering CLASS-3 CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATE Promotes Best Practices And Standards In The Field AGENDA •TYPES OF ESTIMATE CLASSES & THEIR USES: •INDIRECT COSTS: •DIRECT COSTS: COST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION MATRIX Primary Characteristic Secondary Characteristic ESTIMATE CLASS MATURITY LEVEL OF PROJECT DEFINITION DELIVERABLES Expressed as % of complete definition END USAGE Typical purpose of estimate METHODOLOGYTypical estimating method EXPECTED ACCURACY RANGE Typical variation in low and high ranges Class 5 0% to 2% Concept screening Capacity factored, parametric models, judgment, or analogy L: ‐20% to ‐50% H: +30% to +100% Class 4 1% to 15%Study or feasibility Equipment factored or parametric models L: ‐15% to ‐30% H: +20% to +50% Class 3 10% to 60% Budget authorization or control Semi‐detailed unit costs with assembly level line items L: ‐10% to ‐20% H: +10% to +30% Class 2 30% to 75%Control or bid/tender Detailed unit cost with forced detailed take‐off L: ‐5% to ‐15% H: +5% to +20% Class 1 65% to 100%Check estimate or bid/tender Detailed unit cost with detailed take‐off L: ‐3% to ‐10% H: +3% to +15% ESTIMATING INDIRECT COST (Soft Cost) •BONDS & INSURANCE: •ESTIMATING HOME OFFICE & PROJECT OVERHEAD: •ESTIMATING PROFIT & CONTINGENCY: •ESTIMATING ESCALATION / INFLATION: ESTIMATING DIRECT COST (Hard Cost) •LABOR & CREWS: •EQUIPMENT SELECTION: •MATERIALS PRICING: •SUBCONTRACTOR QUOTES: •PRODUCTION RATES: •RISKS: