AASHTO/FHWA Survey on Construction Cost Increases and

AASHTO/FHWA Survey on Construction
Cost Increases and Competition 2012
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
Increase (%)
2007
21
2008
9
2009
18
2010
3
2011
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
36 States
Average
Total Number
Number of
Number of
Number of
Calendar
of
Contracts with Contracts with Contracts with
Year
Construction
3 or more bids
2 bids
1 bid
Contracts Let
Average
number of
bids for all
projects
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
Average of
36 States
Calendar
Year
Average Annual
Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual
Value of
Value of Contracts Value of Contracts Value of Contracts
Construction
with 3 or more
with 2 bids
with 1 bid
Contracts Let
bids ($millions)
($millions)
($millions)
($millions)
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
4) Additional comments/details for the question above.
•
•
•
•
•
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
Number of States with the
selection in 2012
Number of States with the
selection in 2006
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
1 (KS)
N/A
Material availability
0
N/A
Natural disaster recovery or other
regional market issues increasing nonhighway construction demand
0
3
Attributes to decrease competition
Industry consolidation (contractors,
quarries, etc.)
Contractor availability
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
9) Additional comments/details for the question above.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
19%
Reconstruction Major Projects
6%
1%
18
Major Bridge
Specialty
Projects /
Transportation
Enhancements
Maintenance
Projects
1%
17%
10%
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
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)
Public availability of the
list depends on
circumstances
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
25
Other
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,
4
NC, ND, OR, PA, RI, WA, (KY, MI, OK, Nova Scotia)
WV, WI, WY)
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?
•
•
36 States and Nova Scotia responded to question 15 and the result is shown in Figure 26 and
27.
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
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)
•
Other
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?
•
36 States and Nova Scotia responded to question 17 and the result is shown in Figure 28 and
29.
Figure 28: General trend for construction bid prices
A significant
A general
No significant
increase in prices increase in prices change in prices
1
(NC)
•
A general
decrease in
prices
13
11
6
(IA, KY, MO, MT,
(AR, FL, GA, IN,
NJ, NY, ND, OH,
(IL, KS, ME, MD,
MA, MI, MN, PA,
TN, UT, VT, WA,
NV, Nova Scotia)
RI, VA, WV)
WI)
A significant
decrease in
prices
Other
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
14
8
(AR, FL, IL, IA, KY, MI, MT, NC, OH,
(LA, MO, NJ, NY, TN, VT, VA, WV)
PA, UT, WA, WI, WY)
•
Other
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
Fuel
Asphalt cement
Number of States in 2012
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)
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)
Number of States in 2006
29
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
Figure 37: Construction price adjustment clauses used by states
Figure 38: Construction price adjustment clauses used by states
39
Figure 39: Construction price adjustment clauses used by states
Figure 40: Construction price adjustment clauses used by states
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?
•
•
•
32 States and Nova Scotia responded to question 23 and the result is shown in Figure 42 and
43.
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
Number of States
Initiatives
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
Using state forces (maintenance crews) to perform paving work
where competition is lacking
Using state aggregate sources where industry sources are not
competitive
2
2
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
Number of States
Initiatives
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
Total Number Number of
Number of
Number of
Average
Calendar
State
of Construction Contracts with Contracts with Contracts with number of bids
Year
Contracts Let 3 or more bids
2 bids
1 bid
for all projects
173
84
49
40
2.6
2006
202
108
52
42
2.8
2007
187
103
53
31
3.0
2008
AR
222
132
52
38
3.3
2009
230
127
71
32
3.1
2010
223
120
73
30
3.1
2011
75
65
10
0
4.0
2006
70
63
5
2
4.0
2007
67
64
1
2
5.0
2008
DE
67
62
4
1
6.0
2009
60
58
2
0
6.0
2010
66
60
6
0
5.0
2011
388
222
118
48
2.7
2006
382
301
63
18
4.0
2007
352
313
27
12
5.3
2008
FL
460
426
27
7
5.6
2009
438
407
19
12
5.4
2010
415
376
29
10
5.1
2011
440
231
149
60
2.7
2006
340
191
105
44
3.6
2007
263
208
37
18
4.8
2008
GA
382
312
56
14
5.0
2009
292
223
53
16
4.4
2010
276
216
54
6
4.1
2011
72
25
26
21
2.3
2006
111
49
43
19
2.5
2007
104
77
23
4
3.9
2008
ID
116
103
12
1
4.8
2009
187
167
14
6
4.6
2010
119
105
12
2
4.9
2011
804
442
230
132
2.9
2006
925
504
277
144
3.0
2007
1017
610
278
129
3.4
2008
IL
1563
1032
342
189
3.9
2009
1447
955
302
190
3.9
2010
1015
738
196
81
4.1
2011
574
285
206
83
2.8
2006
IN
521
281
183
56
3.2
2007
47
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
574
777
577
445
617
540
576
862
687
693
373
308
290
333
335
334
550
744
558
674
746
697
429
446
454
414
477
398
119
108
109
146
177
134
175
130
153
180
115
211
71
150
379
561
464
372
465
409
407
624
587
575
250
249
223
277
268
256
184
203
210
272
343
324
190
214
279
300
353
321
57
51
56
89
103
80
127
97
124
157
87
180
62
130
142
172
103
60
111
90
123
141
60
65
92
50
51
45
52
56
124
205
106
121
124
117
146
150
120
87
90
70
35
35
33
32
51
42
41
26
21
21
23
29
6
14
48
51
44
9
12
41
41
46
97
40
53
31
9
16
11
15
22
242
336
242
281
279
256
93
82
55
27
34
7
27
22
20
25
23
12
7
7
8
2
5
2
3
6
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.6
3.9
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.7
4.5
3.3
3.8
3.7
4.2
4.1
4.3
2.1
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.8
3.3
3.7
4.1
4.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.6
3.5
3.8
3.7
4.2
5.0
6.4
5.4
4.7
4.6
5.1
MI
MN
MO
MT
NV
NJ
NY
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
283
264
258
240
838
1066
787
843
998
721
177
162
163
287
225
220
340
314
302
417
357
331
101
84
108
130
117
129
29
14
19
38
31
34
51
58
66
49
45
41
316
296
231
230
242
200
731
889
679
674
783
559
141
133
131
231
177
165
240
242
227
318
275
251
48
51
65
95
101
96
18
9
19
37
30
30
45
46
60
43
41
37
243
218
42
25
15
32
98
164
92
157
194
148
30
20
23
38
35
36
78
47
44
78
66
61
38
22
34
25
10
24
8
2
0
1
1
2
5
7
5
5
3
2
60
61
49
10
9
1
8
8
13
16
12
21
14
6
9
9
18
13
19
22
25
31
21
16
19
15
11
9
10
6
9
3
3
0
0
0
2
1
5
1
1
1
2
13
17
4.8
6.1
6.6
5.7
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.3
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.2
3.8
3.4
3.2
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.8
4.1
3.7
3.0
3.3
5.2
6.1
5.3
4.1
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
3.7
3.7
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
276
339
274
245
165
211
258
251
189
201
170
161
154
253
244
222
556
555
651
661
723
767
398
367
363
464
486
379
98
91
89
179
148
105
703
621
716
1045
884
733
38
27
217
295
241
222
101
146
209
197
169
158
132
121
122
196
192
167
386
387
455
469
546
550
242
204
221
352
401
302
63
69
85
167
136
97
477
493
633
921
799
671
26
18
45
34
24
14
45
46
31
42
18
36
34
36
28
50
37
42
122
122
138
121
123
142
102
94
87
81
62
57
29
15
0
11
10
8
170
96
75
120
72
55
7
4
50
14
10
9
9
19
19
18
12
2
7
4
4
4
7
11
13
48
46
58
71
54
75
54
69
55
31
23
20
6
7
4
1
2
0
56
32
8
4
13
7
5
5
4.2
4.9
5.1
5.9
3.5
3.9
5.1
5.2
5.2
4.3
3.6
4.0
4.1
3.6
4.2
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.6
4.3
4.2
3.1
2.9
3.1
4.1
4.6
4.2
3.3
4.2
6.6
5.7
6.8
6.7
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
TN
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
42
67
63
77
167
149
170
363
315
315
143
123
147
220
155
178
60
53
58
104
77
64
374
420
429
312
457
493
138
169
149
185
159
156
432
437
475
409
485
427
404
319
26
51
61
57
93
83
81
210
161
172
68
48
103
176
122
124
40
40
39
70
56
42
213
239
249
203
261
302
69
100
120
150
142
129
202
232
272
283
288
257
252
223
5
11
0
14
42
41
51
91
94
91
40
50
26
35
29
45
13
8
14
22
11
18
90
96
95
58
94
98
54
56
24
26
17
21
95
116
134
80
142
110
101
63
51
11
5
2
6
32
25
38
62
60
52
35
25
18
9
4
9
7
5
5
12
10
4
71
85
85
51
102
93
15
13
5
9
0
6
135
89
69
46
55
60
51
33
3.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.0
3.0
2.6
2.6
4.1
4.6
4.0
3.6
3.5
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.4
4.4
5.2
5.8
5.4
2.6
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.9
WY
Nova
Scotia
36 States
Average
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
318
380
470
306
78
105
94
124
108
95
207
249
302
219
46
56
60
112
97
83
66
71
99
50
19
32
23
8
10
9
45
58
69
37
13
17
11
4
1
3
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.1
2.8
2.5
3.5
5.2
5.2
4.6
175
144
165
165
145
160
-
-
-
-
295
299
301
377
362
320
182
192
210
280
271
239
73
69
58
64
59
53
40
38
32
33
32
27
3.3
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.6
4.4
52
Appendix B: The value of projects for the levels of competition for 2006 through 2011
State
AR
DE
FL
GA
ID
IL
IN
Calendar
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
Total Value of
Construction
Contracts Let
($millions)
377
375
374
498
568
548
107
176
128
109
112
147
2,420
5,513
2,031
2,962
1,622
1,822
2,699
2,393
673
854
678
953
174
276
360
389
289
280
1,378
1,157
1,260
2,168
2,435
1,890
1,373
Total Value of
Contracts with 3 or
more bids
($millions)
163
268
254
390
432
458
96
165
126
104
109
136
1,459
1,849
1,612
1,790
1,426
1,497
1,699
887
576
715
533
795
89
132
229
381
276
270
430
559
818
1,277
1,205
1,435
647
53
Total Value of
Total Value of
Contracts with 2 Contracts with 1 bid
bids ($millions)
($millions)
192
61
82
75
100
73
11
11
2
4
3
12
589
407
130
425
41
67
800
1,128
73
104
120
145
60
104
125
7
7
8
371
368
279
536
727
328
429
22
46
38
33
36
17
0
0
1
1
0
0
372
3,257
290
746
154
258
200
379
24
35
25
13
285
40
6
1
6
2
577
230
162
355
503
127
298
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
1,370
1,529
1,415
1,582
1,277
570
498
667
1,043
620
781
643
355
474
655
480
671
1,125
1,437
453
888
833
1,062
1,771
1,441
1,499
1,011
1,043
677
191
148
194
265
326
173
446
448
379
463
287
460
342
806
1,047
1,189
1,434
1,144
368
386
503
658
540
625
403
302
414
605
421
552
272
296
258
492
523
714
687
713
779
749
837
573
104
91
77
151
221
105
300
326
307
391
240
406
315
54
357
317
202
138
73
114
86
129
242
58
87
185
35
50
45
44
68
437
434
47
169
141
141
982
199
672
174
183
101
48
28
93
84
76
61
126
91
48
65
42
49
25
208
165
24
10
60
89
26
35
144
22
69
55
17
9
5
14
51
416
707
148
227
169
207
102
529
48
87
23
4
40
30
23
30
29
7
21
30
23
7
5
4
2
MI
MN
MO
MT
NV
NJ
NY
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
525
896
923
743
699
1,280
1,572
1,251
1,379
1,261
998
377
635
457
658
713
491
894
916
692
1,107
677
724
258
256
304
285
397
301
627
153
170
233
286
363
600
531
707
837
448
254
1,272
497
748
852
729
591
1,170
1,168
1,076
1,228
1,059
771
341
312
402
577
589
420
638
845
611
895
582
617
184
180
229
237
365
236
201
119
170
223
286
347
482
516
707
835
432
251
834
55
19
116
67
13
104
102
399
158
140
189
210
21
305
44
56
109
51
240
61
69
151
75
71
57
65
56
42
25
55
425
31
0
10
0
11
913
14
0
2
14
2
412
9
33
4
2
4
8
6
18
11
12
17
15
19
11
26
15
21
16
10
13
61
20
37
17
11
18
6
7
10
1
3
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
1
26
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
1,290
1,384
1,942
1,437
1,033
856
1,175
1,863
955
1,733
1,570
266
249
274
319
400
559
1,521
1,201
1,115
1,482
1,581
1,447
600
631
690
1,249
840
760
641
361
393
463
367
209
1,545
1,895
1,879
2,670
2,191
1,892
93
816
1,064
1,840
1,374
996
560
795
1,582
798
1,633
1,336
245
247
77
37
34
247
257
130
114
83
213
1,174
1,005
892
1,257
1,038
952
341
337
406
855
726
623
383
286
310
446
348
202
1,080
1,569
1,760
2,414
2,053
1,760
72
300
145
158
131
469
398
177
149
230
272
77
118
245
53
0
15
15
7
364
244
103
254
117
127
18
56
228
73
24
26
3
50
122
151
43
17
20
5
13
3
6
21
20
48
52
64
94
73
96
82
144
54
123
36
19
14
22
84
2
4
0
101
82
16
2
21
5
3
TN
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
28
100
275
188
124
639
426
644
1,110
903
940
704
303
1,028
2,457
819
738
86
121
109
206
182
112
925
850
796
817
1,268
1,236
382
777
759
1,099
744
1,270
544
581
650
528
512
521
685
18
89
259
188
113
412
308
452
760
558
587
352
137
885
2,376
456
624
59
80
63
122
98
87
665
618
483
454
774
666
249
628
716
1,007
728
1,249
365
258
496
424
391
395
400
57
9
5
11
0
6
160
54
96
206
157
114
307
124
36
70
357
94
18
21
34
36
34
13
124
112
131
102
116
221
104
94
38
83
16
16
120
157
78
50
70
61
184
2
6
4
1
5
67
63
95
145
189
240
45
42
106
11
6
19
10
20
12
48
50
13
136
120
182
261
378
349
30
55
4
10
0
6
59
165
76
54
51
65
101
WY
Nova Scotia
36 States
Average
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
645
886
1,134
1,418
1,092
222
295
327
383
279
245
425
589
799
960
815
171
132
217
361
268
237
134
141
133
261
185
39
137
101
13
8
5
86
156
201
196
91
12
26
8
9
2
3
323
242
-
-
-
795
861
761
979
841
787
490
509
598
797
681
645
256
175
115
119
112
95
92
189
60
79
59
52
58
Appendix C: The data for the average variance from the engineer’s estimate for various
levels of competition in 2011
State
AR
DE
FL
GA
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MO
MT
NV
NJ
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
TN
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Nova S.
Average
1.8
0.0
-8.0
5.7
-5.0
0.4
72.0
4.8
4.4
1.0
23.3
6.5
0.1
8.0
8.4
-4.5
13.0
4.1
-3.9
-10.0
-10.2
17.0
-8.2
-3.7
-15.0
1.9
-2.8
6.5
9.0
-1.1
-9.5
3.0
-0.5
-5.4
-5.0
-10.2
20.0
-8.2
-5.5
-11.0
-5.5
-4.9
8.5
-14.0
-4.2
-5.6
11.0
-1.7
-11.1
-16.0
-10.2
19.0
-7.5
-7.2
-15.0
-8.0
-10.1
7.9
5-or more bid
projects (%)
-9.8
21.0
-5.3
-7.8
-18.0
-10.2
20.0
-10.2
3.2
-18.0
-18.7
-18.4
13.3
-3.7
-8.9
-3.3
-0.6
6.4
7.0
21.0
-2.5
33.0
5.3
4.1
0.0
24.0
-4.3
9.3
11.6
-32.0
32.0
-1.4
21.0
-1.6
4.4
21.0
2.5
-6.5
-3.5
4.9
-14.0
-1.0
-3.5
-4.3
-4.6
15.8
-9.4
-6.0
-5.8
-9.4
-9.8
11.9
-23.0
-15.0
-7.8
-2.2
-3.1
-9.0
-3.1
-5.0
-9.0
-10.0
-2.6
-7.1
-12.9
-13.0
-6.9
4.4
-5.4
2.0
-7.0
16.0
7.5
3.8
16.0
1.3
-10.0
3.6
-7.0
-10.9
-5.2
-7.6
-1.1
-3.0
-2.9
5.8
-15.0
-9.7
0.5
-5.3
-2.8
-1.5
0.6
6.7
-10.0
-14.1
-5.7
0.0
-6.2
-7.6
2.1
8.8
-16.0
-17.6
-9.6
-12.3
-10.1
7.5
0.5
-3.8
-4.0
-7.0
1-bid projects (%) 2-bid projects (%) 3-bid projects (%) 4-bid projects (%)
59
Appendix D: The percentage of single bids received for each type in 2011
State
Asphalt
resurfacing
Reconstruction
Major
Projects
Major
Bridge
Specialty
Projects /
Transpor- Maintenan
tation ce Projects
Enhancements
AR
Other Comments
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
IL
90
0
0
0
0
10
IN
0
4
0
0
0
14
IA
27
2
0
0
0
0
KS
14
1
7
0
9
5
KY
60
15
0
0
10
5
LA
1
0
0
0
1
0
ME
9
0
0
0
39
0
MD
61
3
3
0
26
7
MA
0
0
0
0
100
0
MI
<1
0
0
0
0
<1
MO
1
0
0
0
0
0
MT
16
24
0
0
22
0
NV
0
0
0
0
100
0
ID
The only significant one bidder
work type is asphalt resurfacing
Less than 2% of all bids were Single
Bids.
Most of our traffic signal project are
single bids
MN
60
Montana doesn't have any major
projects. We had 10% regular
bridge projects.
100% of the single bids were
received on smaller specialty
projects.
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
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.
OK
OR
PA
There were only 7 of 733 (0.95%)
statewide with single bids. 4 of
these 7 were categorized as
resurfacing.
The Maintenance projects consisted
of guardrail replacement contracts.
RI
17
0
0
33
0
50
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
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
Currently database access/query
issues. Unable to provide this
information at this time.
Nova S.
Average
None
19
6
1
1
17
61
10
Appendix E: The average annual percentage increase in the bid prices for the past 6 years
AR
DE
FL
GA
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MO
MT
NV
NJ
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
TN
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Nova S.
Average
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
6-year
average
18.2
7.4
-17.3
-11.5
-11.2
8.3
-1.0
6.5
6.1
9.0
-9.0
-3.0
2.0
1.9
12.2
9.5
15.6
0.2
-4.1
8.5
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.6
4.0
-3.7
4.0
-6.8
4.0
4.7
4.0
0.2
10.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.7
-2.4
21.5
-7.8
11.9
12.8
8.5
19.2
-4.2
0.3
0.4
3.0
6.0
4.2
7.4
9.0
18.0
5.0
2.0
12.0
12.0
-5.0
-24.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
6.0
5.2
4.8
12.6
6.9
7.7
-6.1
2.6
4.2
4.7
14.1
4.2
15.0
-4.9
1.3
-2.0
4.6
5.0
22.2
5.0
16.8
3.0
29.6
3.0
0.9
5.0
9.1
9.0
3.0
4.8
5.0
-11.4
2.0
0.0
-8.1
5.0
-4.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
13.4
6.0
3.0
5.6
5.0
7.7
4.3
2.3
6.1
9.1
25.4
0.4
30.6
24.7
10.3
-6.8
-4.4
-2.6
-10.6
7.9
9.2
5.5
10.1
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
AR
DE
FL
GA
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MO
MT
NV
NJ
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
TN
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Nova S.
Average
Asphaltic
Concrete
Paving
4
Portland
Cement
Concrete Paving
11
8
21
11
26
7
7
7
5
10
10
1
20
6
6
-11
4
1
27
1
4
2
8
9
-13
18
43
-15
0
4.0% Reinforcement Steel
concrete paving went down by 13.4%
7
The 43% was experienced 2010 - 2011
2
4
8
9
2
5
0
1
8
28
Pavement Marking 17.2%
Info not available
0
10
8
0
0
Fuel
92
16
40
521
15
4
18
20
Earthwork
Structural
Steel
Other
12
34
metal reinforcing steel 4.5%
8.2
not available
8
0
20
3
0
14
105
0
34
8
10
12
8
17
43
63
Asphalt Cements
9.0 %