Reducing Costs by Streamlining the Selection and Bidding of...

Reducing Costs by Streamlining the Selection and Bidding of Alternative Highway Drainage Pipe Systems

Michael Maher, Greg Hebeler (Golder), John Schuler (VDOT), Leslie McCarthy (Villanova) Moderators: Dr. Ed Harrigan (NCHRP), Colby Caywood (Golder Associates)

NCHRP 10-86 Team

Project Team, Partners, and Stakeholders

Golder Associates Bergmann Associates Dr. Ian Moore – Queen’s University NCHRP 10-86 Panel Members

State Agency Representatives (CA, MO, NE, PA, VA) AASHTO, FHWA, & TRB Representatives Pipe Industry Representatives (ACPA, NCSPA, PPI) Academic Researchers (U of Arkansas, Villanova) Consulting Engineer

All State Agencies

2

Presentation Outline

Introduction to Alternative Pipe Bidding Highlights from NCHRP 10-86 An Agency’s Perspective – VDOT Software as a Teaching Tool – An Academic Perspective

3

3

Introduction to Alternative Pipe Bidding Michael Maher

Infrastructure deficit is real and growing Agencies expected to do more with less Greater appreciation of life cycle costing – longer service

lives are less disruptive and save money More recognition of contractor innovation, e.g. greater use

of alternative project delivery

Realities

5

Increased competition will reduce cost If

• Product A has 5 suppliers • Product B has 8 suppliers • Product C has 7 suppliers

If project bid with Product A exclusively – 5 bidders If project bid allows Products A, B and C as alternatives, now opened up

to 20 bidders

Increased Competition

6

Increases competition (and reduces cost) within product supply industry but also may reduce construction costs, e.g. Product B may be quicker/cheaper to install at a particular site

Alternative Bidding

7

Difficulty of levelling the playing field for alternatives Push-back from some manufacturers/suppliers Increased engineering and design effort Increased performance risks Poor historic performance of particular product Failure to recognize/accept that different products may need different

construction or installation techniques Additional complexity with bid preparation Maybe only Product A is available in a market so why bother? Lack of familiarity with alternatives

Barriers to Alternative Bidding

8

“Alternate design/alternate bidding (ADAB) is a contracting process used in an increasing number of

state departments of transportation (DOTs). The process gives the contractor a choice to bid on either a concrete or an asphalt option, thereby increasing the number of

bidders on each job enhancing competition.”

Alternative Bidding for Pavements

9

Concrete vs. Asphalt as alternatives – well established Frequently strong agency preference for one or other Significant differences in service life, design details and costs – need

complex and controversial bid price adjustments Real differences in performance and economic comparisons based on

geography, climate, etc. – not always a straightforward comparison

Challenges to Implementation

10

Louisiana and Missouri: ⅓ more bids Kentucky: average 4.6 bids vs 2 bids Across states: 10% to 24% below engineer’s estimates vs 14% above to

17% below In individual states average winning bid was 5% to 24% below non AB

bid Indiana, Missouri, and Louisiana: average saving $2M per project Michigan: average $2M net savings after considering costs to

implement

Has it worked?

11

Ohio: In 2010, the average winning bid price for AB projects was 15%

below the engineer’s estimate By allowing bidders this tool, MoDOT has seen a 25 percent increase in

the number of bidders and cost savings of between 9-10%

Has it worked?

Ref: Alternative Design / Alternative Bid: A Survey of the Evidence www.leg.state.nv.us, ATRANS973L, 2013

12

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/

“Economists and business professionals agree – competition is good for the consumer. When

consumers are presented with choices, they can select the product or service of preference, evaluating

their decision based on a number of factors, chiefly quality and value.”

Verdict

13

“This process allows the bidding contractors to select the pavement type to be constructed, rather than a DOT.

This not only eliminates any bias in the selection process, but also increases competition between paving industries. The end result is greater choice, lower costs, and enhanced innovation. In short, the competition that

ADAB fosters provides much better value for the taxpayer.”

14

Pipes are low cost items but very large design effort

• Structural design, hydraulic design, durability checks Pavements: 2 alternatives - Pipes: 50 - 100 alternatives How can equivalent service and value for money be evaluated and

compared easily? One pipe will last 20 years and another 100 years! Can market fairness for suppliers be achieved? Can performance and installation quality be achieved across the board? There are some bad products out there – can they be excluded? “Our jurisdiction has unique problems with abrasion – alternative bidding

won’t work for us.”

But will it work for drainage pipes?

15

Sound and robust engineering basis for design and performance

comparisons – AASHTO Concept of Design Service Life introduced to level playing field Must be automated by use of user-friendly software Must include engineering oversight Needs minimum product performance standards Must recognize product differences as well as installation differences Must incorporate post installation inspection as standard Needs support form pipe supply industry

Basic Principles

16

Comprehensive Alternative Pipe Selection Procedure implemented in 2007

First drainage projects through the system in 2009

Estimate drainage component costs reduced by ~10%

Positive feedback from contractors – product codes easy to understand

Negative feedback from one pipe supply sector

Minor increase in consulting engineering design charges

Reduction in design charges anticipated with future introduction of HiDISCD

Case Study – Ontario, Canada

Information provided by Mr. Art Groenveld, Senior Engineer, Drainage Design, MTO

17

The engineer must take into account these differences when designing a pipe

system using corrugated HDPE pipe. Failing to take these differences into account when designing and specifying products places the engineer at risk. Even if ultimately settled, engineers suffer great loss in the course of litigation—to their professional reputations, as well as to their pocketbooks. Engineers have a sworn duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Failure to heed this duty may result in an engineer being the responsible party with all the associated risk, liability and consequences.

This could result in not only monetary damages, but ultimately in the loss of the engineer’s license. Additionally, the engineer may be criminally responsible for any death(s) caused by poor engineering.

Challenges to Implementation: Scare Mongering

Ref: Read Between the Pipes, P.D. Galloway, Nielsen-Wurster Group, http://www.estormwater.com/read-between-pipes

18

A bill to ensure that all proven and acceptable piping materials be

included in bids for water and wastewater utility service improvement projects.

"Acceptable piping material" means piping material that meets the current recognized standards issued by ASTM international and the American Waterworks Association, or their successor organizations.

Ohio House Bill No. 417 (2014)

19

When contracting for a water or wastewater utility service improvement project, a governmental agency shall: (1) Procure only acceptable piping material; (2) Consider the quality, sustainability, durability, and corrosion resistance

of the acceptable piping materials in relation to the project requirements;

(3) Consider the up-front cost of installation of the acceptable piping materials;

(4) Consider acceptable piping material to be suitable for the project only if the use of that material is commensurate with sound engineering practices and the project requirements.

Intent of Bill

20

H.B. 417 defines "acceptable piping material" to mean “piping material that meets the current recognized standards issued

by ASTM international and the American Waterworks Association.” This language restricts water and wastewater utilities from developing and /or utilizing pipe specifications that are tailored to local and project specific needs and that

may not meet both AWWA and ASTM standards.

Concerns Raised

21

With regard to the municipal water and wastewater utility members of AWWA, H.B. 417 constitutes a significant

intrusion upon the powers of local self-government protected under the Home Rule and Municipal Utility Provisions of the

Ohio Constitution.

Bill Defeated

22

Act Concerning Specifications for Pipes Used by the Department of Transportation To expand the list of acceptable materials used by the Department of

Transportation All technically qualified pipes must be competitively bid. The Department must use established national standards to qualify the

design and construction of pipes. The design service life for storm drain and cross drain applications shall

be seventy-five years, and the design service life for side drain applications shall be fifty years.

House Bill No. 6739, State of Connecticut (2015)

23

Reduction in costs Improve quality Foster innovation, spurring economic growth Consolidation in the industry has reduced competition where single pipe

types are bid In CT in 2015:

90 highway projects - $525 M Drainage ~1% = $5 M Expect ~ $1M/year in savings

Perceived benefits of New Bill

Ref: Testimony in Support of House Bill 6739, by John Stelmokas, Advanced Drainage Systems Inc. , Hartfort, CT, Feb. 23, 2015

24

NCHRP Project 10-86 Highlights Greg Hebeler

Objective of NCHRP 10-86

Objective of NCHRP 10-86 is to develop a procedure suitable for adoption by AASHTO to guide owner-agencies in selecting drainage systems for highway projects.

This streamlined procedure, called the Recommended Practice, assists in design and selection of drainage pipe systems for highways.

Facilitate the selection of a wide range of technically suitable pipe options from a comprehensive list of available pipe systems.

Selection based on: Site characteristics Suitable hydraulic performance Adequate strength to resist deflection Appropriate Service life for application Constructability and performance

26

Specific Objectives and Tasks

Develop a highway drainage system evaluation and selection process that encompasses key factors: Technically Rational and Robust

Hydraulic, Structural, and Durability Incorporates Site Specific Conditions Mindful of Constructability & Operation & Maintenance Requirements Allows Confidence in and Tracking of Post-Construction Performance

Applying the process to field pilot projects in cooperation with DOTs Incorporate lessons learned into the Recommended Practice Develop an Implementation Plan for Adoption by AASHTO Map-21 Eliminated Previous Federal Mandate for Drainage System

Competition on Federal Aid Projects and Provided Agencies Autonomy

27

Benefits of Alternative Pipe Bidding

Highway drainage systems account for a significant portion of roadway infrastructure: 22% of bridge inventory, smaller culverts ~ every ¼ mile

Drainage Systems and Products are Rapidly Evolving with Innovative Research and Product Solutions National Standardization can reduce the burden on individual agencies to separately evaluate and approve each new technology integration with NTPEP, etc.

Increased Efficiency and Competition Reduced Costs Improved Reliability Encourages Innovation and Research

Facilitates Tracking of Infrastructure Inventory and Condition integrates with data management initiatives of SHRP2 and MAP-21

Possible to Maintain Agency Specific Flexibility and Autonomy, but Encourages Competition and Use of all Technically Sound Solutions

28

Identification of Gaps

Resources: NCHRP 20-07 Task 264, State DOT Survey, Literature Review, Other References / Discussions

Knowledge Gaps Design Service Life Consistency – Current NCHRP Synthesis Project Service Life Prediction and Evaluation –Durability Methods not Fully Mature Pipe Joint Evaluation – NCHRP 15-38 Installation Quality Assessment – Innovative Tech., Ongoing Research

Implementation Gaps Out of Date / Inconsistent Fill Height Tables Consideration of Entire Drainage System (Pipe, Backfill, Installation, etc.) Site Specific Consideration of Durability Not Common Practice Consistent and Timely Evaluation of New Pipe Products Unwarranted Exclusion of Pipe Systems (Historical or other Bias) Lack of Agreed National Standards Prevent Use of National Tools / System

29

Flowchart of Recommended Practice

30

Phase 1 Project

Definition

Phase 2 Technical Evaluation

Phase 3 Final

Checks

Roadway & Geometrical

Hydrology & Waterway

Geotechnical & Environmental

Inventory of Available Pipe

Systems

Hydraulic

Structural

Durability

Agency Policies

Phase 4 Results & Bidding

Results Matrix

Bid Documents

Inventory Results

Phase 5 Installation, Maintenance & Tracking

Material & Construction QA

Post-Installation Inspection

Maintenance & Tracking

Final Design A

B

C

D Performance

Feedback System Feedback

30

NCHRP PROJECT 10-86 WEBINAR

NCHRP 10-86 Select DOT Survey Results

31

Current Practice DOT Survey

No Response from DOT

32

DOT Survey – Alternative Bidding

33

‘Guesstimate’ of Pipe Type Usage

34

Diversity Among States

35

DOT Survey - Fill Height Tables

36

Inconsistency in Fill Height Tables

37

24” 36” 36” 48” 2-2/3 x ½ Inch Corrugations

2-2/3 x ½ Inch Corrugations

3 x 1 Inch Corrugations

3 x 1 Inch Corrugations

Mean 90 69 74 67

Max 191 127 147 110

Min 20 14 27 23

Range 171 113 120 87

Maximum Fill Height: Galvanized CMP,

12 gauge

24” 36” 48” Low Quality

Bedding High Quality

Bedding Low Quality


Bedding Low Quality


Bedding

Mean 14.7 18 14.4 18 14.5 18

Max 27 39 26 35 26 35

Min 7.9 10 7.9 10 7.9 10

Range 19.1 29 18.1 25 18.1 25

Maximum Fill Height RCP, Class III (1350D)

HDPE (Type S) PVC (Profile Wall)

24” 36” 48” 24” 36” 48”

Mean 19.6 18.6 17 29.9 28.5 21.5

Max 40 40 40 58 56 40

Min 10 10 10 15 15 15

Range 30 30 30 43 41 25

Maximum Fill Height Thermoplastic Pipes

Example Range of Fill Heights - CMP

38

Example Range of Fill Heights - RCP

39

Example Range of Fill Heights - HDPE

40

NCHRP PROJECT 10-86 WEBINAR

NCHRP 10-86 Select Pilot Project Results

41

Pilot Projects

During the pilot process, we implemented the RP across 9 Agency policies (CalTrans, FDOT, MDOT, MoDOT, MTO, NDOR, NYSDOT, PennDOT, and VDOT). MoDOT and PennDOT supplied real-life current projects for study and comparison.

RP was simple to apply across this range of Agency policies provides confidence in the broad flexibility and applicability of the proposed process.

Results were easily incorporated into current bidding processes. Process uses existing design tools and processes as the base –

comfortable for designers to implement hydraulic and structural evaluation phases.

Durability evaluation will likely be new to most designers and will take more adjustment period to gain comfort and design feel.

Manual implementation of alternative bidding was achievable but cumbersome.

42

Pilot Projects – Structural Comparison

43

Pipe Material CalTrans FDOT MDOT MoDOT MTO NDOR NYSDOT PennDOT VDOT RCP 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Metal (Corrugated or Spiral Rib) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Polyethylene (HDPE) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) 24 24 24 24 24 24 N/A 24 24

Pipe Material CalTrans FDOT MDOT MoDOT MTO NDOR NYSDOT PennDOT VDOT

RCP 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Metal (Corrugated or Spiral Rib) X X X X 24 X X 24 24

Polyethylene (HDPE) X X X X 24 X X 24 24

Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) X X X X 24 X N/A 24 24

Pipe Material CalTrans FDOT MDOT MoDOT MTO NDOR NYSDOT PennDOT VDOT

RCP 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Metal (Corrugated or Spiral Rib) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Polyethylene (HDPE) X X X X 24 24 X X X

Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) 24 X X 24 24 24 NA X X

Average Fill 10 ft

Low Fill 2.5 ft

Moderate Fill 22 ft

Pilot Projects – Durability Comparison

44

Condition pH Resistivity (ohms-cm)

Sulfates (ppm)

Chlorides (ppm)

Design Value 7.5 2000 250 25 “Moderate” 6.5 1000 500 50 “Aggressive” 4.5 500 1000 100

Environmental parameters varied to more thoroughly trial the DRP Two additional hypothetical cases introduced (moderate and aggressive)

Typical Soil and Water Values

Soil Corrosiveness and Resistivity

Pilot Projects – Metal Durability

45

Condition CALTRANS Polymer +30 Polymer +40 Polymer +50 Design Value 54 84 94 104 Moderate 19 49 59 69 Aggressive 0 30 40 50

Steel – Plain Galvanized and Polymer Coated

Condition FDOT Design Value 78 Moderate 43 Aggressive 0

Aluminized Type 2 Durability is key aspect in pipe selection

Definition of failure not standardized Polymer coatings contribute

significantly to service life

All values shown are EMSL (years)

Pilot Projects – Concrete Durability

46

Condition Hurd Hadipriono ODOT Florida Design Value > 500 96 > 500 113 Moderate > 500 86 > 500 88 Aggressive > 500 60 153 58

Wide variation between methods Local calibration of methods suggested Engineering judgment must be applied

Table of Predicted Estimated Material Service Life (years)

Key Findings of Pilot Projects

Widespread adoption of alternative bidding will likely require automation of some kind, either industry developed or nationally/agency funded Existing automated routines, e.g. CalTrans, FDOT and MTO, etc.

each have some good features but none is completely flexible or adaptable to all agencies.

Widespread and standardized adoption would be aided by further national standardization of design criteria and pipe system requirements Development and Maintenance of a National Pipe Product Inventory Harmonized and Standardized Backfill Requirements Harmonized and Standardized Installation Requirements Development of Structural Thermoplastic Pipe Classes Standardized Design Service Life Criteria

47

Technical Evaluation Commentary

Hydraulic Design Discussion

49

Hydraulic Design Methods are fundamentally standard across Agencies. RP proposes to utilize generic roughness categories to streamline

design, one potential choice of categories is: Default Smooth n (e.g. 0.012) Default Corrugated n (e.g. 0.024)

If a different or more rigorous category classification scheme is desired, more categories can be used based on Agency guidelines.

The use of hydraulic equivalency charts is recommended for consideration of individual pipe system roughness values if desired.

Structural Design Discussion

50

Use of fill height tables is universal SOP across Agencies. Significant variation in structural design assumptions and incorporation of

LRFD still exist. Application of RP would help to standardize designs.

Durability Design Discussion

51

Durability design is not fully mature, some ongoing research but a lack of in-service performance databases may be limiting progress. RP recommends service life tracking to promote advances in EMSL methods. RP is intended to allow for easy incorporation of advances in

abrasion/corrosion evaluation methods.

RP Encourages site specific measurement of environmental conditions and use of site specific performance information.

RP recommends incorporate abrasion into EMSL evaluations. Currently recommends use of CALTRANS abrasion method

RP currently does not provide recommendations for default durability methods, as SOP has not identified universally preferred methods.

NCHRP 10-86 Conclusion and Acknowledgements

52

Concluding Thoughts

Pilot Projects Provided Significant Additional Insight into the Current State of Practice to Guide Finalization of the DRP and Aid Implementation.

The DRP was comprehensive yet flexible and adaptable framework able to work across all piloted agency standards.

Encourage, streamlined, technically sound, and consistent approach to pipe system selection. Integrated use of best available practices.

Flexible and expandable framework enabling modification as new methods and materials are developed and customization to address individual agency needs.

Greater national standardization would reduce redundant efforts across agencies and aid implementation of RP.

Several agencies remain interested in project and alternative bidding following removal of federal mandate in MAP-21.

53

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participating agencies (California, Florida,

Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) for their time and willing partnership during the pilot project phase of the project.

In particular, MoDOT and PennDOT for making actual projects available for pilot project process.

NCHRP 10-86 Panel Members for their time, encouragement, and feedback.

Ed Harrigan, Anthony Avery and the entire NCHRP Staff! The role of federal and state agencies in developing much of the

knowledge related to alternative pipe system selection is gratefully acknowledged.

54

General Software Commentary

Software Design Guiding Principles

The software should: Be simple and clean to the extent possible Be visually appealing and intuitive Be technically accurate (with admitted simplifications for certain

design elements) Provide unbiased (apples to apples) comparisons / evaluations. Provide a useful tool to fill a needed gap in the industry Minimize the number of screens required to complete each

module and the entire design process Make all non-critical entries optional Move meta-data / non-critical data and entries to secondary

screens as needed for de-cluttering Be useful and “fun” (or at least “not painful”) to use

56

Software Mock-Up Demonstration

Current Mock-Up Theme

These slides demonstrate the current version of the software status – will evolve with the project and after Alpha and Beta testing.

57

Software Navigation Bar Features

Completed Module

Active Module

Pending Module

PREV NCHRP ADPS Software Start Hydraulic Final Structural

NEXT Durability

Active Multi-Step Module

Access to Admin, Login/Logout, Help and Home Buttons Available Throughout

User Selection or Required Field

Software Calculated Value

User Entry Field

? Logout Admin

? Logout Admin

The header / navigation bar maintains form throughout the software application. It is intended to easily allow users to jump between / directly to desired individual modules while providing a visual tracking display of progress and easy access to key administrative pages (e.g. help, login/out, etc.)

58

Design Module Panel Layout

Functional Pane

Functional Pane Occupies

Left 60% of Screen for Technical Modules Entire Screen for Administrative Modules

Area for User Entries, Calculated Outputs

& Other Software Functional Elements

Functional Pane Header

Information

Pane

User selects visible information via button

selection

Additional information / help available via “?” Button

Schematic Background Results Matrix

PREV Module Header Project: Culvert:

Final Structural NEXT

Durability Start Hydraulic

? Logout Admin

59

Highway 101

Small Creek Crossing

Highway 101Highway 101


Highway 101Highway 101


Highway 101Highway 101Highway 101


Highway 101Highway 101Highway 101


Highway 101

Example Design Module Page In

clud

ed

Pipe Roughness

Class

Default Manning’s

Value

User Calculated Min. Pipe Diameter C

alcu

late

Eq

uiva

lenc

y

Inlet or Outlet Controlled

User Defined

Maximum Diameter

Corrugated 0.024 Inlet Outlet

Smooth 0.012 Inlet Outlet

Ultra Smooth 0.009 Inlet Outlet

Steel Plate 0.032 Inlet Outlet

User Defined Inlet Outlet

Hydraulic Design Inputs

Add Hydraulic Schematics

Schematic Background Results Matrix US (Inches) Metric (mm)

Please note that the software does NOT perform hydraulic analysis, rather it simply compares the hydraulic capacity (via diameter and roughness) of each available pipe system based upon the design information entered.

PREV Hydraulic Design Final Structural

NEXT Durability Start Hydraulic

? Logout Admin

Project: Culvert:

60

Enter Hydrologic Metadata

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40 40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

Enter Hydraulic Design Metadata

Use Manning's Equation Calculator


Highway 101

Simple Manning’s Calculator

61

Additional Considerations:

Slope (ft./ft.):

Design Inflow cfs:

Wetted Perimeter (feet):

Hydraulic Radius (feet):

Area (feet2):

Calculated Diameter (inches):

Manning’s n value:

Imperial Metric

Hydrologic Design Metadata

Drainage Area (mi2)

Design Inflow (ft3)/s

Design Storm (years)

Check Storm (years)

Allowable Headwater (H/D)

Maximum Allowable

Velocity (fps) Minimum Allowable

Velocity (fps) Minimum Regulated

Diameter

Manning’s Calculator

**Assumes full pipe flow and does not consider end treatments. Refer to HY-8 for full hydraulic design

Hydrology Manning’s Agency Criteria

The calculation of the diameter assumes full pipe flow. The Manning’s equation is generally given as a function of roughness, slope, and geometry, and is described in greater detail in : http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_801.pdf.

PREV Final Structural

NEXT Durability Start Hydraulic

? Logout Admin

Project: Culvert:

Hydraulic Design

Schematic Background Results Matrix

Future Watershed Changes

Aquatic Organism Passage

Return to Design M odule

Hydraulic M etadata 2/2

Calculate Diameter

Manning's Equation


Highway 101

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_801.pdf


Durability Design Module – Abrasion

62

Durability Data Inputs

Abrasion Data Select Design Conditions Bed Load None or

Silt/Clay Moderate to Gravel

Moderate to Cobble

Moderate Angular

Heavy Rounded

Heavy Angular

Flow

Ve

loci

ty

(ft/s

)

Smooth n = 0.12 < 5 5 to 8 8 to 12 12 to 15 15 to 20 < 20

Corrug. n = 0.24 < 5 5 to 8 8 to 12 12 to 15 15 to 20 < 20

User n --- < 5 5 to 8 8 to 12 12 to 15 15 to 20 < 20

CALTRANS Level I II III IV V VI

FHWA Abrasion Level I II III IV

Coating

PREV

? Start Hydraulic Final Structural

NEXT Durability

Caltrans Level FHWA Coating

Schematic Information Results Matrix

The CALTRANS abrasion evaluation methodology is considered to be the most comprehensive. CALTRANS defines six levels of abrasion for preliminary estimation of abrasion potential based on flow velocities and bed load characteristics. Recommended abrasion guidance in regards to the CALTRANS methodology can be found in more detail in: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_801.pdf.

Project: Culvert:

Durability Design

Asphalt Coated

Caltrans Level


Highway 101



Example Results Matrix

63

An Agency’s Perspective – VDOT John Schuler

VDOT Pipe Selection Experience (Contractor selection of Engineer determined alternates)

October 22, 2015 John Schuler, PE

Materials Program Manager, CO Materials

804.328.3140, [email protected]

VDOT Pipe Selection Experience

Agenda • Brief Overview • Selection Process

• Standard Drawing Requirements • Typical Plan Sheet for Pipe Alternates

• 2014-2015 Re-evaluation of Selection Process • Pros and Cons of Contractor Selection of Engineer Determined

Alternates • Participation in 10-86A Software Evaluation

66

Brief Overview

For over 12 years VDOT has been allowing the Contractor to choose from Engineer determined alternates.

• In project design, Engineer determines ALL allowable pipe types for

given location (concrete, corrugated metal, plastic).

• Selection criteria and process documented in our Standard Drawings to give a specified service life (50 or 75 yrs). Mostly concerned with pH, resistivity, and abrasion.

67

Selection Process

Bridge size culverts handled by Bridge Division/District Bridge Section

Concrete or Plastic Pipe – All Locations, 75-yr Service Life

Metal Pipe – Determine Location and Service Life

Table B of PC-1 for local exclusions check

Table C of PC-1 for velocity check (2” rock abrasion estimate)

Table D of PC-1 for gauge thickness for required service life

Table C of PC-1 for pH and resistivity check

Check Hydraulics

Check Cover Fills in PC-1

Select Joint Type from Approved List 14

Obtain Local OK

Notify Bridge Section if >7 ft diameter pipe replaced

Contractor selects pipe type if more than one allowed option

Engineer determines Allowable Pipe Types

68

Standard Drawing Requirements

69


70


71

Typical Plan Sheet for Pipe Alternates

72

VDOT is just completing a 2-year re-evaluation of our selection process. We looked at changing from Contractor selection of Engineer determined alternates to Engineer selection of just 1 pipe type per location.

We decided to stay with our current Contractor selection of Engineer determined alternates process, but did make several revisions. Most notably:

Allow local-decision making at Residency/Locality level. Engineer will also select joint types from an Approved List using

AASHTO PP-63 categories, update Specifications to reflect this. Revisions to pH, resistivity, abrasion. Defined service life and how to obtain. Updated cover tables from ASD to LRFD.

2014-2015 Re-evaluation of Selection Process

73

Pros and Cons of Contractor Selection of Engineer Determined Alternates VDOT is staying with Contractor selection of Engineer determined

alternates.

Pros: Engineer selection of 1-3 pipe types per location assures best material

type and service life for the location. Contractor selection from among these alternates assures best price. Service life determination straightforward. Life cycle costing not required. Joints, a significant element to achieving functionality and service life,

are addressed. Locality selection in line with other infrastructure decisions on local

assistance jobs. Documented residency selection allowed.

74

Pros and Cons of Contractor Selection of Engineer Determined Alternates

VDOT is staying with Contractor selection of Engineer determined alternates.

Cons: Cannot track bid prices of individual pipe types. Difficult to track pipe type usage.

75

Participation in 10-86A Software Evaluation

VDOT will participate in evaluating the 10-86A project software.

Experienced drainage engineer will evaluate.

VDOT may find beneficial use of the software.

76

An Academic Perspective Leslie McCarthy

NCHRP Project 10-86A: Software for Bidding Alternative Drainage Pipe Systems Reducing Costs by Streamlining the Selection and Bidding of Alternative Highway Drainage Pipe Systems: Educational Perspective Leslie McCarthy, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Civil & Environmental Engineering

Outline of Webinar Presentation

Objectives Commitment from Academia Curricular Strategies Educational Application of NCHRP

Project 10-86A: Software for Bidding Alternative Drainage Pipe Systems

Closing Remarks

79

Objectives

To educate engineering students in recognizing and embracing the idea of pipe systems as a critical part of our nation’s transportation infrastructure

Photo courtesy of Michael Pluimer

Introduce the concept and need for fiscal responsibility and life cycle considerations in design of pipe systems for highways

80

How to go about it?

One university’s approach…

81

Commitment from academia

Need support from the Department of Civil Engineering

Latitude to incorporate real issues such as pipe selection into curriculum in a meaningful way Sponsorship for field trips in which students are able to see the real impacts

Need engagement from the College of Engineering

Foster network of employers in highway design-related sectors

Encourage student placement in internships

82

Commitment from academia

GET FACULTY EDUCATED! Attend ASCE, State DOT, or TRB-sponsored training Participate in regional and national conferences related to the design

and construction of pipe systems Join committees at ASTM or TRB that deal with pipe issues

Photo courtesy of Michael Pluim

83

Curricular Strategies

1. Engineering Economics- - required course for juniors Introduces calculation of benefits/costs of infrastructure components - - uses CalTrans cost data for real-life projects 2. Transportation Facilities Design - - design elective for seniors Includes design of highways and pipe systems - - uses CalTrans Alt-Pipe software 3. Senior Capstone Design in Transportation - - design elective for seniors Includes semester-long design project that includes a large portion related to highway design 4. Design of Sustainable Transportation Systems - - graduate level course More in-depth course which challenges graduate students with incorporation of sustainable practices in design of highways and passenger rail systems 5. Civil Engineering Materials - - graduate level course Introduces graduate students to material properties of various types of pipes

Opportunities for Use of NCHRP Project 10-86A: Software for Bidding Alternative Drainage Pipe Systems

84


Example: Undergraduate Senior-Level Facilities Design Course

85


Overview of pipe applications Factors in Selecting Pipes Pipe Selection Process Types of drainage pipes

Reinforced Concrete Pipe Corrugated Metal Pipe Plastic Pipe (PVC and HDPE)

Caltrans Alt-Pipe Trials

Outline of What’s Currently Covered

86

Highway Pipe Applications

Culverts Storm Drains

Photos courtesy of Michael Pluimer

87

Factors in Selecting Drainage Pipes

Cost Materials

Pipe, soils

Installation Service conditions

Soil properties / depth Water properties / depth

Durability / Service life Joint performance

Structural capacity Cover depth Minimum and maximum

Hydraulic capacity Roughness of inner wall

of pipe surface Availability

Related to cost (shipping) Ease of installation

Slide courtesy of Michael Pluim

88

Types of Highway Drainage Pipe

Reinforced Concrete Pipe Corrugated Metal Pipe

Several different types and alternatives Plastic Pipe

Corrugated HDPE Corrugated PVC Corrugated PP Solid wall HDPE and PVC

Slide courtesy of Michael Pluimer

89

Process for Selecting Pipes

Review requirements of application Hydraulic analysis Structural requirements – minimum /

maximum cover Soil type and characteristics

Review available pipe types Tools for selecting pipe for design in highways e.g., NCHRP Project 10-86A; Caltrans Alt-Pipe


90

Educational Application of NCHRP 10-86A: Software for Bidding Alternative Drainage Pipe Systems NCHRP 10-86 – Bidding Alternative Drainage Pipe Systems

Outcomes of the Research Developed guide to identify potential pipe systems that meet criteria

for design Pipe systems evaluated based on hydraulic and structural capacity

as well as durability (estimated service life) Software tool

91

Process for Alternate Pipe Bidding using NCHRP Project 10-86 Approach


92

NCHRP Project 10-86

Establishes final matrix showing pipe types that meet all criteria for a given design


93

NCHRP Project 10-86

94

Class Exercise: Caltrans Alt-Pipe Trials

95

Take Home: Caltrans Alt-Pipe Trials

96

Create active learning opportunities for students to apply the 10-86A tool Coordinate with State DOT or Consultants on providing real-life project info

on which to base the educational assignments

Educational Application of NCHRP 10-86A: Software

Image courtesy of Golder Assoc.

97

Closing Remarks

Create active learning opportunities in multiple courses in order to best facilitate retention of use of the NCHRP 10-86A new tool

Seek opportunities not only at 4-year universities, but focus also on curricular development at 2-year technical colleges and community colleges

Increase success by supplementing coursework with real-world opportunities and eventual job placement

98

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

CONTACT INFORMATION

Leslie McCarthy, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor, Civil & Enviro. Engineering Villanova University PH: 610-519-7917 Email: [email protected]

99

Thank You Q&A Session

100

Reducing Costs by Streamlining the Selection and Bidding of...

Documents

Transcript of Reducing Costs by Streamlining the Selection and Bidding of...