History of Construction Contracting Methods Used at MnROAD

1. History of Construction Contracting Methods Used at MnROAD _______________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Benjamin Worel, MnDOT Tim Clyne, MnDOT 4th International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing Session 6b – General APT September 20, 2012

2. Presentation Outline Document its 26+ Construction Events • Traditional (Design-Build-Build) • Procurement • Private Partnerships

3. Owned and Operated by: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Office of Materials and Road Research) with help from its Research Partners MnROAD Long-term accelerated pavement testing facility that gives researchers a unique, real-life laboratory to study and evaluate the performance of materials used in roadway construction.

4. MnROAD Layout • Layout and Designs • 3.5 mile (Interstate Mainline) • 2.5 mile (Low Volume Road) • Asphalt / Concrete / Aggregate • ~55 – Test Cells (~500’ long) • Don’t Know,3,5,10,60 Year Designs • Cell Life Depends on • Research Study • Pooled Fund • State (Formal or Informal) Study • Local Road Research Study • Research Partnership • Research Need • Until Failure

5. MnDOT Contracting Methods Available • MnROAD has Used • Design-Build-Build (traditional & tie to existing contract) • Procurement (MnDOT purchase orders under 75K*) • Private Partnerships (partner does the contract) • MnROAD has Not Used • Design Build • Best Value • Construction Manager General Contractor • Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity • Negotiated Contract (under 150K*) • Pre-Qualified Work (under 50K) Whitetopping (2004)

6. Design-Bid-Build Contracts • Consist of both Traditional and Tied to Existing State Contract

7. Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts • Traditional Process • MnDOT Develops the Plans & Special Provisions • Pre-Bid Meetings with Potential Contractors • Receive Bids from Contractors • Contract Letting • MnDOT Awards the Contract to Low Bidder • Construction (MnDOT Standard QA and Contract Management) • Tie to Existing State Contract Process • Use existing pay factors (don’t exceed 10%) • Positive – Little upfront work & Others do Payments • Negatives – Coordination and Innovation

8. Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts • Research Positives • Allows for typical construction methods and practices • Skilled contracted workers – consistent workmanship • Established formal contracts and contracting process • Less risk to MnDOT and partners compared to other contracting methods • Allows experienced MnDOT inspectors to assist researchers 60” Culvert Study (2000)

9. Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts • Research Negatives • At Times little Communication with Contractors • The Research is not Typical • Special Provisions - Little Room for Innovation • Cannot Say try this and if that does not work try that • Requires a lot of MnDOT and Contractor Time Upfront • Contractor Risk – High Bids • Limited Quantities – Short Test Cells • Unique Materials/Construction/Equipment • Shorter Work Duration Open Graded Stable Base (2011)

10. Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts • Recent Research Innovations • 2010 ARA Partnership to build SHRP-II Composite Pavements • Consisted of Non-Traditional Construction • Wet-on-Wet Concrete Paving • Concrete Recycled CA in Mix • Non-Traditional Aggregate Gradation • Exposed Aggregate Concrete Surface • Stone Matrix Asphalt SHRP-II Two Lift Concrete (2010)

11. Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts • Research Innovation to the Process (how to lessen the risk?) • MnDOT Develops the Plans & Special Provisions • Informational Meetings with Partners & Potential Contractors (Associations) • Exchange of Ideas – Contractor Feedback • Researchers then assist Risks/Rewards • Pre-Bid Meetings with Potential Contractors • Receive Bids from Contractors • Contract Letting • MnDOT Awards the Contract to Low Bidder • Construction • MnDOT Standard QA and Contract Management • Development of a “Practice Slabs” Pervious Concrete (2008)

12. Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts • Research Innovation Outcome • First Bids – Exceeded the Budget • High bids on the SMA Surface • Contractors had issues with two pavers and concrete mix gradations • Reworked the Cells Designs • Re-Let the Contract a Second Time with Success • Learned from that Experience • Listen more to industry Farm Implements (2007)

13. Procurement Contracts • MnDOT Purchase Orders • Lower Cost & Small Construction Efforts • Simple Plans to Contractors (Requires Two Quotes) • Award Low Quote

14. Procurement Contracts • Research Positives • Quick Turn Around • Lower Overall Construction Costs • Less Rules to Follow for Payment • Keeps Mainline and LVR Open for Traffic • Typically Involves a Partnership • Research Negatives • Follow-up Long-Term Research may be Missed • Heavy Involvement from Others (Donation of Equipment, Labor, Materials) • Sometimes Less Skilled Workmanship • Less Construction Control • Can Involve High Demands on Internal Staff (added work) • Cannot Do this anymore

15. Private Partnerships • Partnership Agreements • No MnDOT Contracting for Construction • MnDOT may Provide some Labor • MnDOT Typically Supplies the Monitoring

16. Example of Private Partnership • 2008 Road Science Partnership • 3 Cells (mainline) • 1 Cell (LVR) • Observations • 2.75” Interstate surface on engineered FDR • Engineered emulsion provides a balance stiffness and flexibility. • Benefits • Design method for HMA Full depth repairs • Design method for distressed pavements • Sustainable practice

17. Private Partnerships • Research Positives • Partners are Engaged (Skin in the Game) • Partners have Common Research Goals • Good Relationship with a High Level of Trust • Contractor can be more Innovative • No MnDOT Contracting (Plans, Paperwork, Inspection, etc.) • Research Negatives • Partnership Agreements are not Full Proof Legal Documents • Some Risk if Something goes Wrong (MnDOT owns the Roadway) • Decisions can be made outside of MnDOT’s Control

18. Aggregate Ready Mix Association of Minnesota American Concrete Pavement Association Applied Research Associates, Inc. Bloom Consultants Catepillar Inc. Concrete Paving Association of Minnesota Diamond Surfacing Inc. ICL Performance Products Inc. 17 State DOT’s FHWA Environmental Protection Agency Minnesota Local Road Research Board Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Innophos Inc. International Grooving and Grinding Association Marathon Mathy - MTE Paragon Portland Cement Association Professional Nutrient Agricultural Association of Wisconsin RoadScience Western Research Institute Natural Resources Research Institute Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University U of Wisconsin Extension Service Partnership Examples - Phase 2 Research

19. 2012-2013 MnROAD Research Plan • 1 - Design-Bid-Build • Fully Recycled Roadway – Sustainability • Thin Unbonded Fiber Reinforced Overlay • Fiber Reinforced Whitetopping • 2 - Negotiated Contract • Dowel Bar Retrofit of a thin PCC with Grinding • Diamond Grinding of Pervious Concrete • Full Depth Reclamation of a low volume roadway • 1 - Purchase Order (done 2012) • Flexible Microsurfacing Unbonded Concrete Overlay with Fabric (2011)

20. Future Studies • What will be MnROAD Phase-III in 2016 • Probably - Traditional Design-Bid-Build • Design Experiments with 20 years of experience • Work Closely with Research Partners • MnDOT • LRRB • FHWA • TERRA Partners _______________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

21. TERRA Board Members State and Local • Minnesota DOT* • Minnesota Local Road Research Board* • Iowa DOT • Michigan DOT* • New York State DOT • North Dakota DOT • Wisconsin DOT (Co-Chair) University • Iowa State University • Michigan Tech University • University of Minnesota *Past Co-Chairs Industry • Aggregate & Ready Mix Association of MN* • American Concrete Pavement Association • Associated General Contractors of MN * • Concrete Paving Association of MN • MN Asphalt Pavement Association • American Traffic Safety Services Association • Caterpillar Global Paving • Mathy Technology and Engineering Services • RMC Research and Education Foundation • Road Science (Co-Chair) National • Norwegian Public Roads Administration • United States Federal Highway Association

22. Issues Effecting Innovation and Construction • Individual Operators and Equipment Effect the Final Product • Impacts Research Study - Does not matter how many inspectors • Weather has a Impact • Contractors typically do early/late construction • Contractors Doing Something New • Communication is essential • Equipment/Materials may not be Available • Keep this in mind when contracting MnROAD LVR Semi (2012)

23. MnROAD Experience has Shown • Each Contracting Method has its +/- • Successful Research MUST have a Balance between • Construction Funds • Sensor Installation • Well thought out Research Plan • Implementation Plan • Limited Research Variables • True Partnerships • Require Communication – Trust – Common Goals • Essential for Successful Research Implementation • Essential for Long Term Research Facility (TERRA and Partners)

24. Thank You Questions? WWW.Pooledfund.org