A Case Study in How to Fail at Partnering; How to Build a $37 Million Bridge for $200 Million Plus (and similar useless advice)
Robert Menard, Certified Purchasing Professional, Certified Professional Purchasing Consultant
An infamous concrete bridge was finally finished in 1992. In project management, we speak of the Triple Constraints: Budget, Schedule, and Scope. You already know about the whopping Budget overrun. The Scope or Quality had numerous problems, and the 3 year Schedule took seven years and three sets of contractor teams and one CM advisor to complete. Do you think this project wound up in court? Yes, many times.
Every contractor team experienced major difficulty with the state DOT and each team won substantially in its claims for additional compensation. The presiding judge at trial said that the state DOT had disrupted the project, caused its delay, and had breached the contract by behaving improperly.
No attempt at Partnering was made throughout this project between DOT and contractors. In fact, this project may be and poster-boy for the detrimental effects of adversarial negotiation. No names are used because they are not important to our purposes. The point is that the Partnering approach puts negotiating parties on the same side of the table as mutual goals are established and advanced. The alternative, as in this case, can be disastrous.
The next table presents an approximate time line and dollar amounts (give or take a few months and millions) of the project and some associated remarks.
The principal source is the Providence Journal archives
|
Approximate time line, dollar amounts and other important advice on what not to do in Partnering. |
|||
| Date | Event |
Price |
Remarks |
| 1940/1941 | Original bridge built in 18 months at $118M under budget |
$3 MM |
Steel suspension construction |
| 1978 | DOT plans new bridge |
$37 MM |
To start 1980 |
| 1978 – 1983 | DOT delays work, increases bridge width from 54’ to 72’ |
No price estimate |
Existing span deterioratesBond issues passed |
| Dec 84 – Apr 85 | Bids received from 3 teams |
|
Completion = 3 years |
| DOT investigates bidders | Minority sub under indictment | ||
| Aug 85 | DOT awards TEAM 1 |
$64 MM |
Completion due Sept 88 |
| Nov 86 | Deeper piles required by poor soil boring testing |
Price unknown |
Delay unknown |
| May 87 | DOT authorizes piles testing |
$6 MM |
Delays completion unspecified time |
| May 87 | US Senator demands new railings |
$2 MM |
To improve view of the bay |
| Sept 87 | Deeper piles mandated |
$30 MM |
Delays completion by at least two years |
| Feb 88 | DOT calls for firing TEAM 1 |
|
$30MM claim over piles |
| Mar 88 | TEAM 1 quits in dispute |
|
Reserves rights to claim |
| June 88 | DOT hires TEAM 2 |
$12 MM |
To secure cofferdams, repair concrete |
| July 88 | TEAM 2 encounters cost overruns |
$6 MM |
Latent concrete deficiency |
| Aug 88 | DOT hires interim CM |
$1 MM |
To hire new contractor |
| Jan 89 | DOT hires permanent CM |
$9 MM |
Same as interim CM |
| Aug 89 | DOT hires TEAM 3 |
$102 MM |
TEAM 3 is CM’s partner on Boston Big Dig |
| Oct 92 | Bridge opens, just in time for election |
Hard costs $153MM |
7 yeas after start, 4 years late, and $90MM over original bid |
| Mar 93 | DOT ordered to pay TEAM 1 |
$24MM |
Later reduced to $21 MM |
| July 93 | TEAM 3 claims $50 MM overrun |
|
|
| Feb 95 | DOT ordered to pay TEAM 3 |
$39 MM |
|
| May 95 | DOT postpones $1B road work due to FHA objections, cost overruns |
|
Anyone think the Bridge had an impact here? |
| Final Costs, Excluding legal fees | $200,000MM Plus | ||
| OTHER INTERESTING FOOTNOTES | |||
| Mar 91 | Judge in case of TEAM 1 indicted and convicted, served prison time | ||
| 1994 | Governor in TEAM 1 dispute indicted and convicted, served prison time | ||
| June 95 | FHA withholds funds from DOT for corruption in hiring A/E and other consultants. | ||