FHWA Update AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 26, 2010 Columbia, South Carolina Jon Obenberger, Ph.D., P.E. Preconstruction Team Leader Infrastructure

FHWA Update

AASHTO Subcommittee on Design

July 26, 2010Columbia, South Carolina

Jon Obenberger, Ph.D., P.E.Preconstruction Team Leader

Infrastructure Office of Program AdministrationFederal Highway Administration

FHWA Update:

• Value Engineering• Consultant Services• Freeways & Urban Streets• Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares – A CSS

Approach, ITE Recommended Practice & Congressional Hearing on Practical Design

• FHWA Everyday Counts Initiative

7/26/2010 2FHWA Update

Value Engineering:

Satisfied 2007 OIG Audit Recommendations & Findings:• Update FHWA’s VE policy• Integrate VE into FHWA’s risk assessment process• Develop VE program goals & measures• Promote successful practices• Need to conduct VE analysis on required projects,

increase % of recommendations adopted & conduct VE analysis earlier in project development


Value Engineering: (Cont.)

Updated FHWA VE Policy clarifies:• When VE analysis is required• Need for & typical elements of a VE program• VE analysis process & key considerations• When to conduct a VE analysis• FHWA oversight, monitoring & evaluating of State

DOT’s VE program & VE analysis on projects• http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/13111a.htm


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/13111a.htm


VE Goals, Performance Measures & Thresholds:• Goal 1: Maximize impact of VE analysis on projects

cost & performance– % of VE recommendations implemented– % of estimated construction costs saved

• Goal 2: Quality of VE programs– # of State DOTs w/ formal VE policy– # of DOTs w/ established VE program– % of projects w/ VE analysis conducted prior to 30% design



• Goal 3: Improve FHWA’s stewardship & oversight– Improve FHWA’s involvement in VE analysis– Ensure VE analysis is conducted on required projects– Integrate VE into stewardship & oversight plans

• FHWA VE goals, performance measures & thresholds:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/


2010 OIG ARRA Advisory:• VE analysis required on ARRA projects similar to

Federal-aid highway program funded projects• OIG findings – VE analysis:– Not being conducted on all projects– Being performed too late in project development– Staff involved in projects not aware of need to conduct &

when to conduct a VE analysis– Not being conducted by locally administered projects



• Release 2009 VE results• Update VE regulations• Update NHI VE workshop• VE program performance monitoring• Identify, promote & share successful practices• Coordinate & share practices w/in VE community


Consultant Services – National Reviews:

• Locally administered projects – high risk designation• GAO Report 2008:– States increased reliance on use of consultants– Oversight & independence challenges – State DOTs &

FHWA

• OIG Audit 2009 – oversight consultants indirect cost rates & costs claimed Federal-aid highway

projects• FHWA National Program Review 2009


Consultant Services: (Cont.)

National reviews – findings & conclusions:• ~25% Federal-aid funding used for consultant services• Equivalent or alternative Brooks Act practices no

longer allowed• Consultant services used in every aspect of project

development, delivery & program management:– Large % projects use fixed price-lump sum in State DOTs– Inconsistent procurement methods– Inconsistent program services & capabilities



National reviews – findings & conclusions: (Cont.)• State DOT consultant services programs – improve:– Procurement policies, procedures & manuals – Consistency w/ policies & procedures– Oversight State DOT & local agency procurements

• Consultants serving in “management” role & agencies fulfill responsible charge requirements

• Conflict of interest - regulations & guidance needed



National reviews – findings & conclusions: (Cont.)• Procurement methods complying w/ regulations• RFP’s & contract requirements• Acceptance & use of audits, independent cost

estimates & contract negotiations using:– Indirect cost rates– Direct salary rates & total compensation– FAR cost principles



FHWA Activities:• Continue collaboration w/ ACEC, AASHTO, ARTBA, etc.• Use AASHTO Audit Guide & develop 3 training courses• Developing FHWA Directive - certify indirect cost rates• Update Federal Regulations (23 CFR 172)• Completing cost recovery:– Determine final questioned costs – August 31, 2010– Complete cost recovery – Dec. 31, 2010

• Developing FHWA stewardship & oversight toolbox


Planning & Designing Urban Streets:

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares – A CSS Approach, ITE Recommended Practice:

• Use CSS principles in planning & project development• Collaborative & multidisciplinary development of

project purpose, need, scope & decisions• Flexible use of design standards & criteria based on

projects context, competing priorities & impacts• Balance setting, community objectives, all facility users,

adjoining development, corridor & system needs


Planning & Designing Urban Streets: (Cont.)

Recommended Practice Describes:• Process using CSS principles & framework for planning &

design of urban thoroughfare design– Uses target speed, context zones & thoroughfare type– Don’t use – ADT, design speed or functional class– Provides guidance on trade-offs for specific cross-

section elements & intersection design• http://www.ite.org/css/


Congressional Hearing on Practical Design:

• Using Practical Design & Context-Sensitive Solutions in Developing Surface Transportation Projects

• FHWA, AASHTO, County, ACEC, ITE & Academic Reps.• Congressional issues of interest – June 10, 2010:– How are projects fit into a community? – How to right size – what should be basis (e.g., practical

design, economic reasons, community needs)? – Need to mandate practical design or complete streets

policies & design standards for urban streets?


Congressional Hearing on Practical Design: (Cont.)

• Complete Streets Legislation in congress:– Mandate all users able to travel on Fed-aid funded projects– States develop law & policy w/in 2-years Federal adoption– MPO’s develop policy

• Majority panelists endorsed:– Not requiring practical design standards– Rely on CSS principles - tailor project to meet context & needs

• Other interests endorsed:– Require project development process – doesn’t exist– Require urban street design standards be developed, adopted

& used on projects – State DOT’s & FHWA won’t initiate


FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative:

• Partnership w/ ARTBA, AASHTO & Industry• Initiatives Focus:– Accelerate technology & innovation deployment– Shortening project delivery toolkit– Accelerate project delivery methods

• Efforts:– Promote innovative practices w/ guidance,

outreach material, training & successful practices– Implement practices in each state


FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative: (Cont.)

Accelerate technology & innovation deployment:– Warm mix asphalt– Prefabricated elements & systems– Adaptive signal control– Safety edge– Geo-synthetic reinforced soil

Accelerate Project Delivery:– Construction manager at risk– Design-build



Shortening Project Delivery:• Defining planning studies• Expanding use of programmatic agreements• Use of “In-Lie” fee & mitigation banking• Facilitate advancing delayed EIS’s• Clarify & use flexibility in preliminary engineering• Legal sufficiency enhancement• Flexibility in RW• Utility relocation & accommodation



• Example – Utility Relocation & Accommodation:– Goal: Increase the use of innovative:• Agreement provisions• Construction contract provisions• Reimbursement methods

– Outcome: DOT to use of one of these innovative techniques on a project for the first time


Questions?


Documents

FHWA Update AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 26, 2010 Columbia, South Carolina Jon Obenberger, Ph.D., P.E. Preconstruction Team Leader Infrastructure