1 / 54

Alternate Pavement Bidding in Missouri

Alternate Pavement Bidding in Missouri . Natalie Roark, P.E. Missouri Department of Transportation. March 3, 2011. Radical Cost Control Responsibility. 5,000 miles of Major Roads 27,000 miles of Minor Roads 10,000 Bridges. Annual Pavement Quantities.

urit
Download Presentation

Alternate Pavement Bidding in Missouri

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Alternate Pavement Bidding in Missouri Natalie Roark, P.E. Missouri Department of Transportation March 3, 2011

  2. Radical Cost ControlResponsibility 5,000 miles of Major Roads 27,000 miles of Minor Roads 10,000 Bridges

  3. Annual Pavement Quantities

  4. Cost Control in Missouriimplementation - the road to success • Past Decade – Letting schedules optimized • Spring 2002 – Performance Specs written • Fall 2003 – Alternate bidding pavements required • December 2004 – Practical Design concept pitched to Commission • Spring 2005 – Districts challenged to cut STIP 10% • Fall 2005 – First Practical Design Policy written • 2006 – First Design/Build Projects • Fall 2007 – First ATC Project

  5. Alternate Pavement Biddingmaximizing competition CONCRETE ASPHALT • Radical Cost Control • Concrete or asphalt? Let the marketplace decide.

  6. First Alternate Bidding Pilot • Missouri let five pilot projects in 1996 • Project conditions included • Design costs within 15% of each other • At least one mile of paving • Primary work was paving • Minimal grade change impact • Area unit prices • An LCCA adjustment factor was used

  7. First Alternate Bidding Pilot • Bidding Results: 3 Asphalt / 2 Concrete • Low paving prices, but not lower than expected • Higher number of bidders per project • Overall - no verdict, process went dormant

  8. Alternate Bidding RestartFall 2002 • Pavement Team Developed: Composed of MoDOT, PCC and HMA paving industry, and FHWA representatives; • Recommended in 2003 to restart alternate pavement design bidding • Initial hesitation by concrete industry • LCCA assumptions difficult to reach consensus on

  9. Alternate Bidding Pavement Design From 1993 – 2004 a simple catalogue design, derived from the 1986 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures, was used for new Jointed Plain Concrete pavements. The Pavement Team recommended adopting a mechanistic-empirical (M-E) design approach for pavements in Missouri.

  10. M-E Pavement Design Guide • Beneficial component of making the Alternate Pavement Bidding process successful. • Design method had common input parameters for both pavement types. • Adopted by AASHTO as state of the art design method. • Had industry support to make it successful.

  11. Alternate Pavement Design • ‘Structurally Equivalent’ concrete and asphalt construction and rehabilitation solutions • Life Cycle Cost Analysis Adjustment factor applied to the asphalt bid

  12. M-E Design Implementation Started using nationally-calibrated MEPDG program at the beginning of 2005 for PCC and HMA designs. Average PCC thicknesses reduced by ~ 2” for high truck volume routes ~ 1” for low to medium truck volume routes Average HMA thicknesses reduced by ~ 3-4” for high truck volume routes ~ 1-2” for low to medium truck volume routes

  13. Alternate Pavements - Policy Alternate pavement design with a LCCA factor for projects with 7500 sq yd in a continuous area New full depth and major rehabilitation construction Optional pavement designs without a LCCA factor for smaller paving quantities

  14. Alternate Pavement Designs • New construction (based on M-E Design Guide) • Concrete • Asphalt • Rehabilitation • 8“Unbonded PCC overlay (UBOL) • Rubblization w/ 12“ HMA overlay

  15. Design Transition • Not as bad as initially thought • After several iterations the procedures were simplified to one set of designs • Alternate (or optional) bid designs have become second nature to MoDOT and consultant designers

  16. Method of Measurement • New PCC and HMA measured in square yards • Unbonded overlays measured in cubic yards for furnishing and square yards for placing • HMA overlay (on rubblized PCC) measured in wet tons

  17. Alternate Design Life Cycle Costs • LCCA used solely to determine adjustment factor for 45-year design life • Life cycle costs considered • Initial Construction • Maintenance • Rehabilitation • Salvage value • User costs

  18. Rehabilitation Assumptions • Asphalt • Mill and fill wearing course at 20 years in driving lanes • Mill and fill wearing course at 33 years across whole surface • Concrete • Diamond grind whole surface and perform full-depth repairs on 1.5% of surface area at 25 years

  19. Adjustment Factor Adjustment Factor = Present Worth of Future Asphalt Rehab - Present Worth of Future Concrete Rehab

  20. Adjustment Factor Spreadsheet Used by Central Office Estimating Section

  21. Alternate Bid Selection Low bidder = lower of (PCC bid price) vs. (HMA bid price + adjustment factor)

  22. Alternate Bid Example #1 • 21 miles of grading and paving new dual lane on US 63 in Macon/Adair Counties • Adjustment factor = $1,541,000 • Low HMA construction bid = $22,220,790 • Low HMA bid for comparison = $23,761,790 • Low PCC construction bid = $24,320,546 • Winner  low HMA bid • Adjustment factor has no impact

  23. Alternate Bid Example #2 • 8 miles of grading, paving, and bridges for new dual lane on US 36 in Macon County • Adjustment factor = $964,800 • Low HMA construction bid = $40,499,627 • Low HMA bid for comparison = $41,464,427 • Low PCC construction bid = $35,322,473 • Winner  low PCC bid • Adjustment factor has no impact

  24. Alternate Bid Example #3 • 11 miles of grading and paving new dual lane on US 63 in Randolph County • Adjustment factor = $1,469,200 • Low HMA construction bid = $25,262,509 • Low HMA bid for comparison = $26,731,709 • Low PCC construction bid = $26,452,184 • Winner  low PCC bid • Adjustment factor HAS impact

  25. Alternate Pavement Update for Jobs Thru Dec 2010 with LCCA Factor • 187 Alternate Projects to Date ($2.234 bil) • 174 Full Depth ($2.052 bil) • 13 Rehabilitation ($182.1 mil) • Full Depth • 59 Asphalt Awards ($539.4 mil) • 115 Concrete Awards ($1.513 bil) • Rehabilitation • 1 Asphalt Award ($2.6 mil) • 12 Concrete Awards ($179.5 mil)

  26. Results: Difference in Low Bids • Low PC Bids vs. Low AC Bids LCCA Factor not Applied • PC Total – $854,428,378 • AC Total - $871,075,824 • Difference - $16,647,446 (1.9%) • Low PC Bids vs. Low AC Bids LCCA Factor Applied • PC Total – $854,428,378 • AC Total - $901,988,624 • Difference - $47,560,246 (5.6%) • LCCA Factor has Determined Low Bid 4 Times since October 2003.

  27. Number of Bidders

  28. Price Summaries • Start of Alt Paving in 2003-2005 price difference from alt to non-alt for same items of work - 10% • Since then still savings but all jobs are alt so hard to make a valid comparison.

  29. Other Optional Bidding • Intermediate overlays • 5 ¾” HMA vs. • 5” ‘big block’ PCC • Thinner overlays • 3 ¾” HMA vs. • 4” ultrathin PCC

  30. Other Optional Bidding • Thin overlays • 1 ¾” HMA vs. • 1” HIR plus surface treatment and • 3 ¾” HMA vs. • 4” CIR plus surface treatment

  31. Optional Shoulder Designs • A2 design • 5 ¾” HMA • 5 ¾” PCC • A3 design • 3 ¾” HMA • 4” PCC (also roller compacted option)

  32. An independent third party peer review was performed in late 2005 by a respected national consultant on MoDOT’s alternate pavement bidding process. “It appears that MoDOT has developed a balanced, innovative program that could serve as a national model for other highway agencies throughout the nation and beyond.”

  33. Thank You and Questions!For more information including example plans and specifications go to:http://epg.modot.mo.govNatalie Roark, P.E.natalie.roark@modot.mo.gov(573) 751-3726

  34. Alternate Bidding: The West Virginia Experience 2011Virginia Concrete Conference March 3, 2011 Richmond, VA Bob Long Executive Director ACPA Mid-Atlantic Chapter

  35. Evolution of Alternate Design Alternate Bid (ADAB) Procedures • Joint efforts began in the Fall 2007 including WVDOH, FHWA and industry. • Formal procedures implemented in July 2008 • All procedures finalized June 2010

  36. CORRIDOR H – US 48 MOOREFIELD (July 2008) • First “formal” Alternate Bid pavement project • 10.6 miles • 4-lane arterial • No life cycle cost adjustment (C factor) • Included asphalt escalator • Asphalt by the ton and PCCP by the SY

  37. CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement Typical Description: • Perpetual pavement design provided by Industry using Westergaard Equations Design • 10” Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement on 4” free draining base • 15’ doweled joints • Full depth tied concrete shoulders 10” Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement 4” Free Drain Base • Assumptions: • Analysis period = 50 yrs • Initial performance period = 22 yrs • Rehab performance period for CPR = 14 yrs • Rehab performance period for Overlay = 14 yrs • No Salvage value @ year 50 • Rehab #1 – diamond grinding and 7.5% joint patching • Rehab #2 – overlay w/2” skid resistant mix w/PMA and 2% joint patching

  38. ASPHALT PAVEMENT DESIGN PavementTypical 2” 12.5mm skid w/76-22 AC 2.5” 19mm mix w/76-22 AC 4” 25mm mix w/64-22 AC 5” 37.5mm mix w/64-22 AC + 0.5% AC content 4” Free Drain Base Description: • Perpetual pavement design provided by Industry using PerRoad 3.2 Design Program • 13.5” HMA on 4” free draining base • Use PG 76-22 polymer modified asphalt (PMA) binder in top 4.5” and on future overlays • Increase AC by 0.5% in bottom 5” • Assumptions: • Analysis period = 50 yrs • Initial performance period w/PMA = 22 yrs • Rehab performance period w/PMA = 14 yrs • No salvage value @ year 50 • Rehab #1 – mill and resurface w/2” skid resistant mix w/PMA • Rehab #2 – mill and resurface w/2” skid resistant mix w/PMA

  39. West Virginia Department of Transportation Division of Highways Bid Results - Letting of July 15, 2008

  40. SECTION 690 MAINLINE PAVEMENT 690 – GENERAL 690.1 - DESCRIPTION: This Special Provision shall define the requirements to construct mainline pavement, which includes roadway pavement and full depth paved shoulders, to the limits as shown by the contract plans. The contractor shall construct one of the pavement systems as described herein and by the contract plans.

  41. CONCRETE PAVEMENT SYSTEM: A concrete pavement system shall be constructed as defined by the concrete typical section(s) and all other documents referenced in the contract plans. This work and materials shall include jointed plain concrete pavement, free draining base, fabric for separation, subgrade, and subgrade preparation ASPHALT PAVEMENT SYSTEM: An asphalt pavement system shall be constructed as defined by the asphalt typical section(s) and all other documents referenced in the contract plans. This work and materials shall include asphalt wearing surface, asphalt base courses, free draining base, fabric for separation, subgrade, and subgrade preparation. .

  42. RECENT ADAB PROJECTS WV 10 – 3.7 miles • 4-lane arterial on new alignment – pre-graded • 10” PCCP vs. 12.25” Asphalt • Bid by the SY of Mainline Pavement • 4 of the 6 bidders bid concrete and the low concrete bid was 17% lower than asphalt • Low SY price was $60.00 King Coal US52 – 9.5 miles • Pre-graded and bid by the SY of Mainline Pavement • 10” PCCP vs. 11.5” Asphalt • 5 out of 6 bidders went concrete and the concrete bid was 3% lower than asphalt • Low SY price was $48.45

  43. RECENT ADAB PROJECTS WV Corridor H, US 48 – 3.3 miles • 4-lane arterial on new alignment – pre-graded • 10” PCCP vs. 13.5” Asphalt • Bid by the SY of Mainline Pavement • 4 of the 5 bidders bid concrete and the low concrete bid was 29% lower than asphalt • Low SY price was $46.40

  44. RECENT ADAB PROJECTS US Route 35, Putnam County – 14.5 miles • Design build – lump sum bid • 4-lane arterial with structures on new alignment – grade, drain, pave & structures • Bid by the SY of Mainline Pavement • 10” PCCP vs. 12.5” Asphalt • Four proposers – 3 confirmed use of concrete pavement • Successful team went with concrete

  45. RECENT ADAB PROJECTS WV Corridor H, US 48 – 6.0 miles • Design bid build • 4-lane arterial with structures on new alignment – grade, drain, pave & structures • Bid by the SY of Mainline Pavement • 10” PCCP vs. 12.5” Asphalt • Low bidder went with concrete • Low SY price was $44.50

  46. THE RESULTS • 8 out of 9 projects went concrete when bid as an alternate to asphalt • On these projects about 80% of the bidders have bid concrete and all have had at least 4 bidders • WVDOH has saved $9,800,000 just on the four paving jobs alone over the low asphalt bids.

  47. UPCOMING ADAB PROJECTS • Route 9 - Charlestown - VA line – 3.1 miles paving only • Corridor H - Rte. 1 to Mount Storm – 11.8 miles paving only • Corridor H - Mount Storm to Parsons - 10 miles grade, drain, & pave

  48. Why ADAB “Works” in WV • WVDOH senior management support • Strong new construction program • Equivalent designs • Economized PCCP design (no seal, no dowels in shoulder, no cure on CTOGB • Most asphalt work controlled by one company

More Related