Pavement Type Selection and Alternate Pavement Type Bidding

1
Pavement Type Selection andAlternate Pavement
Type Bidding

• An Overview of MDs Experience

Presented at the AASHTO Joint Technical Committee
on Pavements December 7, 2006
Peter Stephanos, Maryland SHA
2
Presentation Outline

• Use of Alternate Bids
• Pavement Type Selection
• Why it changed
• How it changed
• How well it is working
• Alternate Bid Experience
• Maryland, Ontario and Missouri
• Summary

3
Use of Alternate Bidding

• FHWA traditionally discouraged use of alternate
  bids for pavements
• FHWA approved a Special Experimental Project for
  use of alternate bids in Missouri 1996.
• AASHTO recognizes Alternate Bids as a contracting
  technique that will be utilized in the 21st
  century
• Recommended when more than one alternate is
  judged equal by an agency and that the least
  costly design approach will result from a
  competitive bid.

4
Use of Alternate Bidding

• Federal Aid policy suggests that alternative
  designs are considered for large projects
• A life cycle cost economic analysis should be
  conducted to compare the total cost of each
  alternate.
• Alternate bidding should be used when there is no
  clear cut choice between two alternates and have
  similar life cycle costs
• If the alternates do not provide equivalent
  designs then an adjustment must be made to the
  bid to equate the alternates

5
Use of Alternate Bidding

• The following States/Provinces have experience
  with alternative bidding
• Alabama
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Missouri
• Ontario

6
Pavement Type SelectionWhy it changed in MD

• Traditionally based on deterministic Life Cycle
  Cost process
• Used on large new construction and reconstruction
  projects
• Followed process to select concrete pavement
  alternate for 40 million new construction
  project
• Contested by industry in Nov. 2002, 5 weeks
  before advertisement

7
Pavement Type SelectionWhy it changed in MD

• Formed Pavement Type Review Team to evaluate
  design and alternate selection
• Several areas of concern raised by industry
• Pavement section
• LCC inputs (future MR, unit costs, etc.)
• Payment differences
• User delay costs
• Level of adjustment factor
• Provided Final Report in Feb, 2003 with options

8
Pavement Type SelectionDevelopment of New
Process for MD

• Formed new team in Feb, 2003 to develop new
  Pavement Type Selection Process
• Team charged with development of new process by
  Feb, 2004
• Team consisted of industry, FHWA, construction,
  design, planning, district and pavement SHA staff
• Developed new process in Feb, 2004 and revised
  process in March, 2005

9
Pavement Type SelectionOverview of New Process

• Policy on application of process
• Three tiered approach
• Life cycle cost comparison
• Component analysis
• Innovative contracting
• Probabilistic approach to LCC
• Weighting of component factors based on project
  priorities
• SHA/FHWA project team formed to make final
  decision

10
Application Policy

• Evaluated several factors to consider use of new
  policy including
• Type of work (rehab vs. reconstruction)
• Project costs
• Projects that go through formal planning
• Size of project
• Staff resource levels was a limiting factor in
  the number of projects that could be identified

11
Application Policy

• All projects developed through the Project
  Planning Division ready for design,
• and
• Any projects with a construction estimate gt 15
  million (with at least 5 million dedicated to
  pavement/MOT items)
• Estimated to be 6 to 8 projects per year.

12
Three Tiered Approach
13
Life Cycle Cost Factors

• Based on historical data and expert opinion
• Material unit costs
• Pavement service life
• Construction sequencing
• Construction duration
• General analysis inputs
• Variability represented by average and standard
  deviation

14
Life Cycle Costs Estimate
Alternate 1 value _at_ 80 probability 16 million
Alternate 2 value _at_ 80 probability 19 million
15
Example Input Material Costs
16
Example Input Service Life
17
Component Analysis

• Cost Factors
• Present worth Agency Costs Initial Future
• Present worth User Delay Costs
• Construction Factors
• Duration of Construction
• Maintenance of Traffic
• Maintenance of Access
• (utilities future maint, material sources,
  reliability of construction)
• Design and Environment Factors
• Traffic and Geometry
• Adjacent Pavement and Structures
• Environmental Impact
• (community concerns, future planning)

18
Example Component Score
19
Component Matrix
20
Project Experience
21
Project Experience
22
Summary of Recent Projects
23
Industry Comments

• Decision thresholds fixed or flexible?
• Material price fluctuation effect on inputs
• Frequency of Alt Bidding competitive?
• Routine rehab strategies or new?
• Approach to pavement design
• Level of adjustment factor
• Unit of payment for pavement items fair?

24
ICC Bid Process

• 2 billion project advertised as 5 major
  projects
• Design/build project
• Best value selection process
• Design/build contractor designing pavement
• Design performance specifications developed

25
ICC Performance Specs

• Requires either a flexible or jointed plain
  concrete pavement for mainline and ramps
• Requires a 25 year initial structural design life
  no adjustment factor
• Design constraints set in specification
• Must meet 1993 AASHTO Design
• Must comply with MDSHA Pavement Design Policies

26
Ontario Experience

• Use alternate bidding on large projects
• Generally pleased with outcome
• Have advertised and awarded 6 projects to date
• Adjustment factor based on future agency costs
• All 6 projects awarded to concrete bidder
• Adjustment factor was not a factor in any of the
  bids
• Projects have gone well
• Bids typically lower then conventional bids

27
Missouri Experience

• Use alternate bids on all projects longer than 2
  lane-miles in length
• Developed process to create adjustment with
  industry
• Have advertised 50 projects
• Adjustment factor based on future agency costs
  (45 yrs)
• Adjustment factor deciding factor twice since
  2003
• Use MEPDG as design methodology
• Pleased with outcome

28
Missouri Experience

• 50 Alternate Projects
• 45 Full Depth (655.8 mill)
• 5 Rehabilitation (49.2 mill)
• Full Depth
• 20 Asphalt Awards (296.7 mill)
• 25 Concrete Awards (359.2 mill)
• Rehabilitation
• 1 Asphalt Award (2.6 mill)
• 4 Concrete Awards (46.6 mill)

29
Missouri Experience
30
Missouri Experience
31
Missouri Experience
32
Thank You

• Maryland State Highway Administration
• Peter Stephanos Tim Smith
• Director of Materials Technology Pave/Geotech
  Division Chief
• Phone [phone] Phone [phone]
• Fax [phone] Fax [phone]
• pstephanos_at_sha.state.md.us tsmith2_at_sha.state.md.u
  s