Alternate Technical Concepts AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 28, 2010 Columbia, S.C. KATHY HARVEY State Design Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation

Alternate Technical Concepts

AASHTO Subcommittee on DesignAASHTO Subcommittee on Design

July 28, 2010July 28, 2010

Columbia, S.C.Columbia, S.C.

KATHY HARVEYKATHY HARVEYState Design EngineerState Design EngineerMissouri Department of TransportationMissouri Department of Transportation

Project Development Process – New and Improved!

TODAY’S PRESENTATION

Why

What

How

Challenges

Future


Construction Program Cliff


ATC WHY? – Best Value for Every $

Dwindling financial resources

Many ways to accomplish goals

49 other DOTs –

municipalities - FHWA

Contractor’s experience


ATC WHY?

MoDOT + Industry = 1 Team = Best Value

D/B job experience Encourage $ Savings Contract administration

Contractor risk VE vs. ATC


ATCs … are proposed changes to agency-supplied

basic configurations, project scope, design or construction criteria.

provide a solution that is equal or better to the requirements in the RFP.

are similar to value engineering, but are made as a part of the proposal before contract award.

provide flexibility to the proposers in order to enhance innovation and achieve efficiency.


ATC WHAT? - Legality

“ … likelihood of a protest reduced because of the reluctance of the courts to overturn agency decisions regarding advantages of one proposal over another, unless it is apparent that the decision was arbitrary or capricious, or agency failed to follow its own procurement practices.”

-- NCHRP 561 p S-9


ATC WHAT? – Different than D-B

Extension of design process - VE

Contractor is VE partner

Evaluate design effort vs. benefit

Design is funded as preliminary engineering


ATC How? – Where we started

Rock – the deal maker Profiles – can we roll? Medians – width or protection? Removals – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it Retaining Walls – CIP vs. MSE vs.

elimination Materials – optional if we can Traffic Control


ATC How? – Recent additions

Bridge Designs Interchange Configurations New use for what’s already there

Bottom Line – VE up front – Competitively Bid


ATC HOW? – Grading and Drainage

4:1

Rock at 2:1

PIPE


ATC HOW? – Pavement

4” Aggregate Base

Pavement 10” PCCP/13.5” AC


ATC HOW? – Pavement

Thick Rock Base

Pavement 8.5” PCCP/9.5” AC


ATC HOW? – Bridges

Concrete Box vs. Arch Structures

Steel Girder vs. Concrete Girder

Box Girder vs. NU Girder


ATC HOW? - General

Currently Job Special Provision May include sketches Pre-approved design changes


ATC HOW? – Pay Items

Plan Quantity of Initial Design

Lump Sum Sections

Lump Sum Savings

Change Order

Change to revised quantity

New plans for ATC effects


ATC HOW? - Pre-Approved

Timelines – submittal & approval

Technical Parameters

Detailed Submittal Process

Evaluation Project Team review Confidential Pass/Fail


ATC How? – Design

Base set of plans always provided

MoDOT/Consultant re-design

Collaborative Plan Development

Re-design completion after award

Evolving Process


ATC Challenges? – Design

Design effort for ATC submittal

Who leads ATC re-design

No cost change order

VE of ATC’s

Contractor incentive

ATC team w/AGC


ATC Future? – Development

MoDOT

FWHA

Contractors

Suppliers

Consultant

ATCs and VECPs


ATC Example – One that worked

Route H bridge over I-44, Springfield

Reduced 4-span bridge over I-44 to 2- span with use of MSE walls


ATC Example – One that didn’t

I-70/I-435 Interchange, Kansas City

ATC eliminated 1 bridge, 3 MSE walls, reduced grading and lowered road-user costs. Saved $2.4 million.

Not approved by FHWA.

Now a VE proposal.

Documents

Alternate Technical Concepts AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 28, 2010 Columbia, S.C. KATHY HARVEY State Design Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation