THE MANRESA NEIGHBORHOOD COALITON used the FOIL Act (Freedom of Information Law), to learn that ConnDOT’s own consulting firm, Cianbro/Middlesex JV, had recommended using alternate sites to Manresa. The FOIL’d files are very large, but can be found at this LINK. We’ve included details from these documents below that illustrate constructing the WALK BRIDGE at a site that specializes in steel fabrication and delivery will be more cost effective than using Manresa.
Lift Span Assembly Yard Review
September 9th, 2020
Cianbro/Middlesex JV
A. Introduction & Purpose
CMJV was tasked with evaluating different locations for assembly of the (2) lift spans for the Walk Bridge project in conjunction with the ongoing ROW pursuit of potentially using Manresa Island as the local yard for assembly. The task has required the solicitation of marine terminal property owners, marine transporters, insurance carriers, and others. The task additionally required a potential revision to already submitted/established mean and methods that will require heavy transport subcontractors to be involved in the shipping of the lift span and onsite float-in. Ultimately it was decided that for offsite locations to be considered, use of a larger ABS barge in conjunction with the float-in would be needed. This is because the lift span ends would overhang the ends of a barge that would fit in the project’s channel and is not possible for offshore shipping. Using an ABS barge then for the float in would require that the lift span be rotated onsite in order for the ends to be landed on the roll-in structure and/or the bearings. The jackup and rotation of the lift span onsite has been detailed in the Exhibits of this review and was used in the solicitation of (2) proposals from Mammoet & Barnhart who both adequately priced the plan without issue.
The (5) different options CMJV has evaluated for purposes for comparison:
1. 90% Option MNO Propeties, Norwalk, CT.
2. Manresa Island / NRG Facility, Norwalk, CT. (used as the baseline)
3. Cianbro’s Morgan Wharf Yard, Baltimore, MD.
4. Port of Coeyman’s, Ravena, NY.
5. Steel Fabricator Offsite Full Assembly (G&G Steel Quoted from Iuka, MS).
B. Highlights of each property along with key means & methods for each site:
1. 90% Option MNO Propeties, Norwalk, CT.
o Property requires installation of a significant bulkhead
o Key means & methods include (all have been detailed to date):
▪ Span built on company owned Flexifloat barges
▪ Crane located on shore
▪ Erection truss for lift span assembly
▪ Jackup system to raise lift span to correct roll in elevation
▪ Utilizes proximity to the site to be able to have lift span overhang ends of
barge during transportation allowing a small enough barge to fit in channel.
2. Manresa Island / NRG Facility, Norwalk, CT.
o Property has a significant marine slip for work to occur adjacent to a long bulkhead
that will allow for enhanced access for personnel and deliveries.
o Key means & methods include (very similar to 90% / MNO):
▪ Span built on an outside rental inshore barge
▪ Crane located on a separate company owned barge
▪ Erection truss for lift span assembly
▪ Jackup system to raise lift span to correct roll in elevation
▪ Utilizes proximity to the site to be able to overhang ends of lift span off
barge during transportation allowing a small enough barge to fit in channel.
3. Cianbro’s Morgan Wharf Yard, Baltimore, MD.
o Property has a significant bulkhead adequate for roll on/roll off procedures along
with a commercial building previously used for steel fabrication and actively used by
Cianbro.
o Key means & methods include:
▪ Span built on land on short temporary shoring
▪ Crane located on land
▪ Roll-On Structures using SPMTs onto ABS barges in Baltimore, MD
▪ Jackup, Rotate & Lower Lift Span(s) onto Roll-In Structure/Bearings
4. Port of Coeyman’s, Ravena, NY.
o A privately owned marine terminal and property dedicated mainly to the construction industry with a deep-water
dock and bulkhead where Roll-On procedures have been performed for many projects.
o Key means & methods include:
▪ Span built on land on short temporary shoring
▪ Crane located on land
▪ Roll-On Structures using SPMTs onto ABS barges at the Port.
▪ Jackup, Rotate & Lower Lift Span(s) onto Roll-In Structure/Bearings
5. Steel Fabricator Complete Offsite Assembly (G&G Steel Quoted from Iuka, MS.)
o In this scenario CMJV would have the Lift Span steel fabricator assemble (and metalize) at the fabricator’s facility. CMJV would expect delivery in advance of the span installation and the fabricator would be responsible for the delivery.
o Key means & methods include:
▪ Assembly & shipping methods will depend on the steel fabricator.
▪ Jackup, Rotate & Lower Lift Span(s) onto Roll-In Structure/Bearings
C. Estimate Analysis (refer to Exhibit C)
D. Schedule Analysis
CMJV has not done a detailed schedule analysis of each of the new scenarios mainly because they primarily will not have any implication to the critical path. Each instance is very similar as well considering that the lift span would be assembled in a location that will have no effect on the jobsite, even in the case of Manresa Island. There should be consideration given to the fact that CMJV’s estimate does consider the requirement to have each of the Lift Spans here in advance of Partial Demolition commencing based on emergency contingencies developed inside of that plan.
E. Conclusion
CMJV has reviewed in depth each of the options as shown in the Exhibits of this review and found that all are viable options for the project, and each have their own merits, aside from the cost considerations.
CMJV previously promoted Manresa Island as a positive alternative compared to MNO on the basis that there was no need to construct a bulkhead such as the one being proposed for MNO and the yard could be used for multiple marine operations (potentially). Now that there has been further development with the planning and procurement of the Manresa space and subsequent communication with the surrounding communities, it appears that Manresa may be a restricted place to work, especially when compared to some of the offsite facilities that are a part of this study. Both ‘leased’ offsite assembly locations, Morgan’s Wharf & Port of Coeymans, are established construction facilities where work is taking place everyday with little to no restriction to be considered for our project.
A benefit in the case of Cianbro’s Morgan Wharf Marine Yard in Baltimore, MD is that the company already has a well-established work force in the area that could construct the lift span. This would eliminate the need of having to source labor from further away markets with travel incentives.
Port of Coeymans’ advantages lie mainly in the fact that it is much closer to the project location and has significant resources for CMJV to utilize in their effort to construct the lift span. Consider the fact that Mammoet (heavy transport subcontractor) maintains an area at Port of Coeymans just for performing work such as that being considered here and the benefits their property has. CMJV has estimated the cost at Port of Coeymans in this review like that of Baltimore using ABS barges for transport. There may be however an opportunity of transporting the Lift Spans on smaller inshore barges, eliminating the need to rotate the lift spans onsite.
The final consideration CMJV gave to offsite assembly was soliciting a steel fabricator that can completely assemble the lift spans on their own and be responsible for the marine transportation of them to the jobsite. CMJV worked with G&G Steel on this concept and has done similar type assembly and transport for projects in the Northeast. The estimated savings that has been represented here is substantial even considering that the added cost of rotating will have to occur onsite. The cost savings in fact is likely to be even higher since CMJV has not yet received a metalizing field touch up quote since the 30% estimate and G&G has included that work in their cost represented here.
Ultimately, CMJV believes that assembling the lift span offsite is a perfectly viable and optimal choice considering the difficulties that have become apparent with trying to perform the assembly locally. There are added costs for the roll-on of the structure offsite and the float-in but potential savings with site work, rental and CMJV’s method of assembly. Overall, though, the consideration of offsite assembly has led us to realize there may be even more significant savings in having a reputable steel fabricator perform the assembly themselves, such as G&G’s proposal and its potential cost savings. At this time, only G&G has been approached regarding this possibility, but it is feasible that there are more steel fabricators willing to do something similar.