Ve Workshop Design-construction Report 42005

8/3/2019 Ve Workshop Design-construction Report 42005

1/63


2/63

VALUE ENGINEERINGWORKSHOP

FOR Optimizing Resources forDESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

PRACTICES

Prepared by: Carlos O. Ruiz, P.E.NMDOT Value Engineering Coordinator

Context Sensitive Solutions Bureau

Providing Value Engineering, Professional Services and Environmental/Urban DesignJoe J. Sanchez, P.E., CSS Bureau Manager

December 10, 2004


3/63

VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP

For Optimizing Roadway Resources

WORKSHOP REPORT

INTRODUCTION

At the request of the Infrastructure Division Director of the New MexicoDepartment of Transportation (NMDOT), Steven Harris, a Value EngineeringWorkshop was conducted December 10th, 2004, at the (NMDOT), District 3, in

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

OBJECTIVE OF THE VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP

The objective of the Value Engineering Workshop was to provide creative andinnovative recommendations to the NMDOT Executive Management that provideopportunities to optimize multi-modal transportation design and construction tobetter balance flexibility in design criteria/standards and their resultant effect inthe projects construction phase. The principal goal of this workshop is tofind methods that produce safe, well-designed and environmentally friendly

NMDOT Transportation projects that provide for optimization of multi-modal resources and more efficient construction costs and which can beapplied at the project level for immediate use by project teams.

VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP PARTICIPATION

The group of participants representedthe various highway engineeringdisciplines typically involved in atransportation project from the

NMDOT, the New Mexico Division ofthe Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), as well as the transportationengineering consulting andcontractors communities in the stateof New Mexico.


4/63

The number of participants was 35 individuals, including 3 participants at large:Deputy Secretary Andres Aragon Viamonte, Deputy Secretary Robert Ortiz andInfrastructure Division Director, Steven Harris, as well as 4 facilitators: JoeSanchez, Roy Maestas, Max Valerio and Carlos O. Ruiz. Please see AppendixA for a complete list of participants.

WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT

Steven Harris welcomed the participants and explained to all of them theobjective of the VE Workshop. He also encouraged the group to generateinnovative and creative design or construction alternatives to produce more cost-effective transportation projects without compromising safety, function, qualityand environmental attributes of the particular transportation project.

Deputy Secretaries Aragon and Ortiz also addressed the group to reiterate the

workshop objective.

The group was then sub-divided into Group A and Group B. Both groupsbrainstormed a number of ideas with the following results:

Group A generated 46 ideasGroup B generated 33 ideas

Please see Appendix B for a complete description of all ideas generated byboth groups.

Group A and B were further subdivided into twogroups in order to analyze as many ideas aspossible that promised the most potential fordesign and construction improvement as well ascost savings.

Finally, in a general session style, the 4 VE Sub-groups presented their findings and suggesteddesign and construction practices recommendation for implementationconsideration by the NMDOT Executive Management.

VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP IDEAS DISPOSITION

Out of the 79 ideas generated by Group A and B, 19 were considered NMDOTpolicy improvement related, 63 were considered very good ideas for furtherdiscussion and 13 were actually analyzed in some detail and recommended forimplementation. We do not recommend discarding any of the ideas proposed.We do recommend as general guidance a project-by-project VE consideration ofall the ideas presented at the workshop that do not require Policy change.


5/63

Ideas Disposition Table

Group No. For Further NMDOT Policy Evaluated

Ideas Investigation Improvements

A 46 39 3 4

B 33 24 16 9

TOTALS 79 63 19 13

BREAKDOWN OF IDEAS PER CATEGORY AND PER GROUP

Groups A and B categorized in similar but not identical fashion their ideas. Thefollowing tables reflect the how ideas were grouped.

GROUP AShoulders Traffic Control Drainage Design Std's Recycled Alternatives

"MOT" Flexibility Materials Barriers

15, 27, 25, 28, 22 17, 14, 20, 24, 12, 13 1, 35, 7, 43, 10 2, 19, 37 4, 32 6, 23, 26

5, 29, 39

Pavement Materials Policy Major

Design & Source Ideas Stand Alone

Management

6, 11, 27, 41 3, 53, 42 21, 2-37 34, 38, 44, 45, 30

GROUP BDesign Policy Structures Roadway Contracting Materials

1, 4, 5, 11, 17, 18, 19 2, 10, 14 6, 7, 13, 16, 28, 29 8, 15, 21 9, 12, 30, 33

20, 23, 24, 26, 22

27, 25, 32, 31

To identify the idea and description with a respective number in the above tables,please refer to Appendix B of this report.


6/63

VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS

The sub-groups took these selected ideas and developed them. They alsocalculated the potential cost savings for each alternative recommended for

implementation. The cost savings for the analyzed ideas were based onassumptions for the Global VE Session. It should be noted that theseassumptions will vary on a project-by-project basis and the associated costsavings will vary on a project-by-project basis. The following table summarizesthe VE Workshop Recommendations. For more specific details, considerations,

justifications and sketches, please refer to Appendix C of this report.

Joe Sanchez, Eric Worrell, AlbertThomas & Keun-Wook Yi

Dennis Peralta during the presentation ofideas session.

Andres Aragon Viamonte, NMDOT DeputySecretary, participating in discussion of ideasduring the Value Engineering Workshop.


7/63


8/63


9/63


10/63

The recommendations in the previous table are to be considered on a project-by-project basis bythe respective Project Development Engineer (PDE) and or as recommended in a ValueEngineering Study.

When a particular PDE considers the implementation of any of the recommendations mentioned

before, the recommendation should be fully documented in the form attached as an AppendixD.

In addition, the following comments made by Eric Worrell of the New Mexico Division of theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) should be taken into consideration when selecting anddocumenting the following recommendations:

19-A - The standard "metric" lane width is 11.81' not 11'-8". 11.81' equalsapproximately 11'-9 3/4". So the savings from using metric lane equivalentswould be a little less than what the team calculated. However, to bring thesavings back to about what was calculated, FHWA suggests that this metric

suggestion be applied to the entire cross-section. So 12.0' lanes would become11.8' and a 8.0' shoulders would become 7.9'. 4.0' shoulders would be reduced to3.9'. The resistance might be from those who think that these are oddballnumbers to work with, but in this age of computer aided design, surveying andconstruction - the odd numbers should not be a problem.

26-B - FHWA suggests that the metric equivalents above be used on theinterstate system. 11.5' lanes would be acceptable off the interstate on high-speed rural or urban highways and 11' on low speed rural or urban highways.

5-B - A thorough safety analysis will be required prior to adopting a 5' shoulder asa standard for federally funded rural roads. It is probably acceptable for lowvolume designs. Methods in the report FHWA-RD-99-207, "Prediction of theExpected Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways" may be used for thisanalysis.

SUGGESTED POLICY REVISIONS

The following NMDOT policy revisions were suggested by the participants during the workshopand are provided in the following table for your information.

Idea No. Suggested Policy Revision

2-A Design Guide for Low Speed Rural Highways21-A Policy on Reimbursment for Utility Relocation24-A Striping Policy

37-A & Geometric Design Criteria (Group A & B combined)4-B This suggested policy revision includes also idea, 5-B, 17-B, 18-B, 19-B, 20-B, 26-B1-B Drainage Criteria32-B Improve Interagency Coordination

These suggested policy revisions may require Executive Action to generate the neededanalysis from various technical groups within the agency to support a Policy Revision. In


11/63

order to avoid excessive policy change, identify how many of these suggested policychanges could be addressed in practice by using the inherent flexibility in the AASHTOPolicy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and engineering judgment on a project-by-project basis.

OTHER PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

The following table reflects other recommendations made during the Value EngineeringWorkshop but that they were not computable, other than by virtue of implementing one in theprevious table the recommendation becomes mutually exclusive, or that they need furtherinvestigation by the respective NMDOT design section for recommendation in the followingrouts:

Interstate National Highway System State Oversight Roads Low Volume State Roads

These recommendations, as any contained in this report, should be considered on a project-by-project basis.

Current Proposed Comments

Practice Practice

DVMT Management System DVMT Application in a Potential savings were not calculated

scientific basis

Traffic Control Plan Do not include TCP in construction Potential saving were calculated to be about.

plans, rather explore the option of $40,000. However, this recommendation requires

Lump Sum TCP's. further analysis by the Traffic Technical Support

Section

Bridge design allows for Change design criteria to allow the 100 Limited feature for use in drainage channels should2 Ft. below girder for a year storm return to top bridge be less ta 2% and recommended by the Drainage

50 year storm return and superstructure providing air passages and Bridge Design Sections

100 year storm to be touch in decks and girders. Possibly design

bottom of girder. unit slab bridges to act as culverts by

structurally attaching slab to

abutments/peers.

Drainage Structure carries 50 Change back drainage design criteria Potential savings were not calculated.

years storm return and 100 year to allow for 50 year storm return to not Further investigation is required.

storm return should not top road top road.

Build tapers out of PMBP Eliminate PMBP tapers. Substitute This recommedation is mutually exclusive with

tapers with Base Course recommendation 22B. However, if this recommendation

is implemented, the potential saving were calculated

to be at $10,000 per 2-lane mile.

R Value sometimes very Perhaps by testing more extensively This recommendation potential savings were not

conservative. within the particular road ROW the R but it is believed that the savings in the pavement

Value can be more realistic and higher. structure can be substatial. This recommendation

needs to be further invesitigated.


12/63


13/63

APPENDIX A

List of Participants


14/63

List of Participants

Name Representing Phone

Steve Harris NMDOT 827-5484Robert Ortiz NMDOT 827-0658

Darrell Wade NSC 373-2100

Kevin-Wook Y NMDOT 827-3266

Paul A. Fagone D-2 637-7256

Dennis Peralta NMDOT 827-9853

Lee Onstott NMDOT 827-5631

Bob Meyers NMDOT 827-5466

Eric Worrell FHWA 820-2039

George Herress Gannett Fleming West 820-7020

Ricardo Roybal NMDOT 827-9852

Andy Nowak NMDOT(drainage) 827-5696Carl L FHWA 820-2036

Sherman Peterson NMDOT 827-3293

Jeff M. Lowry Drainage 827-5408

Miguel Gabaldon NMDOT (D-5) 827-9527

Joe Garcia NMDOT (N.Reg. Design) 827-5409

Robert Thomas NMDOT(D-2,Construction) 626-9872

Michael Vigil NMDOT (Lab) 827-3245

Mike Beck San Bar Const. Corp. 452-8000

David Krueger A.S. Horner, Inc. 873-1577

Jim Camp NMDOT (Bridge) 827-5532

Steve Rodriguez NMDOT (Traffic) 827-5529

Charles E. Hamilton James Hamilton Const. Co. 388-1546

John Tenison NMDOT (Lab) 827-9811

Paul Little NMDOT (D-1) 544-6575

Mike Falin Wilson & Co. 719-520-5200

Robert J. Garcia NMDOT 827-5217

Albert M. Thomas Bohannan-Huston Inc. 823-1000

Wayne Dreske NMDOT 523-1302

Joe J. Sanchez NMDOT 827-5249

Andres Aragon Viamonte NMDOT 827-5258/490-3417

Roy Maestas NMDOT 827-6876Max Valerio NMDOT 827-5270

Carlos Ruiz NMDOT 827-5475


15/63

APPENDIX B

Description of ideas generated by Group A & B


16/63

GROUP A

1. Consider Bridges-VS-Box-VS-Culvert

2. Design Guide for low speed rural highways

3. Materials investigation sources in advances

4. Salvage existing pavement from lanes/shlds

5. Guardrail overlow low box culverts

6. Wire-Rope- VS- CW-Barrier

7. Culverts-VS-Grade Xings T.O.

8. Balance PMBP/BC- Source of Matl for haul same as BLM method

9. Median Widths

10. Widening road from 2 to 4 lanes Drainage Design Policy

11. Recon/US/RehabLow R-valve

Borrow job-increase R

Not borrow-stabilizeLime/Cement/FA

12. Construction Phasing

13. Constructability of the Project PhasingCauses design changes

14. Work Zones

15. Thick overlaysTreatment of SHLR

16. Integrate Planning, PE, DSN, Construction, Maintenance

17. Bridge DetoursL-High Cost- How do we reduce cost?

18. Alt DSN/for bidding19. Lane Width

20. Detailed TCPsUS Lump Sum TCPs

21. Policy on Reimbursement for Utility Relocations

22. Edge of Lane to Edge of ShoulderTaper- RatioDepth of Pavement- in Shoulder

23. Guardrail over Box- CulvertsDo we need?

24. Phasing for Construction Associated Placement of Temp CWB-During

construction or use a different method of protection?25. Usable Shoulder

26. Departure for length of need on guardrail

27. 3R (Shoulders)- Shoulderpavement-thicker than main line

28. Limited R/W- Use a header curb- US- Taper low-Volume Roads

29. Increase Maintenance on Drainage Structures Preventive

30. Mech. Stabilized Slopes VS RW/Retaining Walls

31. Use of existing L Re-Use of CWB


17/63

32. Use of salvageable existing Roadway Resources

33. Stockpile SurplusBorrow/Waste/MillingsProjects for adjacent projects

34. $15 million dollars Project size to get economy to scale

Techniques:a. Bid Altb. Sequencingc. Timing of Bids

35. Culvert DimensionsBOX

36. Use of Urban Design Tech. into rural townsMainstreets

37. Revisit design criterias

38. Access manual may not recognize differences in road use

39. Mechanical gauging of historic culvert flows

40. Local Market-cost estimating41. Pavement Management System

42. Use of excess RWFor Borrow-Ditch for Matl-then drainage path

43. Variable bridgeSection-(-1 bridge)

44. VE Proposals by contractorsEncourage during construction

45. Landscape/Roadway CommissionBeautification (2.5%_

46. Round abouts


18/63

GROUP B

1. Drainage Criteriaa. Design to Facilityb. Minimize Structure

2. Replacement (in-kind Ext.)a. More thorough Evaluationb. Design corridor to plan

3. ?/manage earthwork

4. Review Policy on typicals(All Elements)

5. Reduced Section Shoulders

6. Higher R-Value(Locating more geo-tech work)

7. Base Course/BorrowRDW trade off (weighted average analysis)

8. Contracting Methodsa. In-state/sizingb. Economic value remains in-state

9. Evaluate & Provide ForAlternative Material Types (i.e. Bridges, RCPs, etc.)

10. Poxy Crack Sealant VS Overlays (Bridges)

11. Evaluate Traffic Controla. Lump Sum Spec: only reserve for simple rural project develop detailed plans

for urban complex projectsb. Sequencing & Phasing good for new

12. Guide: Result in SavingsRequires Research, Money, & Time

13. R-Values by facility (Importance)

14. Addressing Bridge Needs @ INTCA, but not necessityFull INTCH, Upgrade

15. Contract Packagesa. Different Types: (ie. Grading, paving, structure)b. Add/Deduct Alternates

16. Onsite Borrow/ Prism(Ditches VS Off-site Sources)

17. Shoulder Design Policy

18. Super Elevation19. Pavement Tapers

20. Drop Off Policy

21. Utility CoordinationConsider paving for reimbursement VS Waiting on Utils.

22. Review Design Review Processa. Scope-Establish Budgetb. Documentation-thoroughc. Decision Authority/Data Support

23. Detour Policy-Review (Excessive CWB)


19/63

24. Striping PolicyPay for ?

25. AestheticsEnhance by Location/Review

26. Reducing Lane Widths

By FCIN Class27. More Analysis on Walls VS RON (Cost/Time)

28. PCCP Variable ShouldersPartial PCCP/ PMBP (Tapers)

29. Build Less Paved Turnoutsa. Gatesb. Cattleguards

30. Silt Fencesa. Seek Alternativesb. Design Locations

31. Specifications

Measure of Payment32. Improved Inter??

Coordinate/Regulatory ??

33. Asphalt Technologies


20/63

APPENDIX C

Detail information for ideas proposed for implementation


21/63


22/63


23/63


24/63


25/63


26/63


27/63


28/63


29/63


30/63


31/63


32/63


33/63


34/63


35/63


36/63


37/63


38/63


39/63


40/63


41/63


42/63


43/63


44/63


45/63


46/63


47/63


48/63


49/63


50/63


51/63


52/63


53/63


54/63


55/63


56/63


57/63


58/63


59/63

APPENDIX D

Value Engineering Proposed Idea Worksheets

Implementation Documentation Sheet


60/63

Description

es

n

Exception/Variance

Mit

Termini&Lengthof

Project

ADT

Hea

vy

Comm

erci

al

Crash

History

Functional

Class

Roadway

Use

Design

Speed

Lane

Width

LWCost

Shoulder

Width

SHLDR-

WCost

Side

S

lope

Side

Slope

Cost

Pavement

Depth

Pavement

Depth

Cost

CSS

Treatme

nt

s

Constructio

nEffect

Longterm

Maintenan

ce

53

1311

25FR:6.04-

CR0.347

M-

Collector

High

Mobility,

Uncontroll

edAcces,

Oilfield

Traffic

notto

exceed

65mph

AASHTO

mim11'-

recomme

nd12'

AASHTO

5'dueto

volumes-

canadjust

to4'

can

use

4:1

consider

senseof

place

entryways

,consider

visual

quality

enhance

ments

dueto4ft.

shlder-not

recommede

dtoreduce

pavement

depth-

influence

from

industrial

vehicles

could

increase

erosion

RoadwayFeatures

FlexibleDesignTreatments


61/63

AMENDMENT # 1

Comments from Eric Worrell, FHWA, New Mexico Division


62/63

VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP FOROPTIMIZING RESOURCES FOR DSIGN &

COANSTRUCTION PRACTICES

AMENDMENT # 1(4/19/05)

The following comments from Eric Worrell, FHWA, New Mexico Division, are underconsideration by the NMDOT for implementation to the above-mentioned report.

My understanding at our last meeting was that the discussion on "optimization" referred tooptimizing the Design, not just resources. Although the difference could be interpreted asinsignificant by some, some also may interpret "optimizing resources" as a first cost

optimization which wouldn't necessarily include user costs and maintenance costs. To me"optimizing the design" would, in addition to first costs, include consideration ofsafety, maintainability, and traffic operations. In addition to possibly tweaking the title of thereport, we suggest discussion of these additional costs in the text of the report.Please modify the FHWA comments appearing immediately prior to the section "SuggestedPolicy Provisions".

19-A -- This comment requires corrections in the text of the document. Incidentally thiscomment only repeats arguments by FHWA to NMSHTD when they were being pressured toconvert back from the metric system to foot-pound PS&E's in the late 90's. A metric project is

approximately 1.0% to 1.5% cheaper to design, construct, maintain, etc.

26-B -- I would like to revise this comment to indicate that the 11.5' lanes would be acceptableon higher speed 4-lane divided highways which in NM are generally operating far belowcapacity. On high speed 2-lane highways, I would not encourage less than 11.8' (11'-10")except on low volume and/or low speed roadways as defined in the AASHTO guide for designof low-volume roadways (we support Idea No. 2-A which suggests NMDOT formally adopt thisAASHTO Guide). Except with regard to Low Volume, Low Speed roadways, the originalsuggestion for narrower lanes wasn't necessarily intended to apply in combination with othergeometric design reductions (such as steeper foreslopes).

5-B -- The FHWA Resource Center has previously conducted training in New Mexico on themethods in FHWA-RD-99-207, and reported that it didn't seem like NMDOT sent the "rightpeople" to this course. The course has now been Adopted by NHI - "Safety Considerations ofGeometric Design Decisions on Rural Two Lane Roadways". Perhaps the time is right to hostthis course again??

In the VE Meeting it was suggested that we don't prohibit Cost Reduction suggestions simplybecause of a regulation but rather only for valid engineering (safety or performance?) reasons.


63/63

As you know our office has done some follow-up on the issue of steeper foreslopes and on thebasis of valid research, seriously questions the suggestion to steepen foreslopes . On theother hand, comments by FHWA (myself) at the VE workshop were made to the effect thatthere is a growing school of thought in the highway safety research community that suggeststhe safest lane widths may be "around" 11.5' wide. This has been widely mis-interpreted by

NMDOT personnel, including comments made by the Secretary at the TransportationEngineering Conference in Las Cruces.There is no evidence that 12' lanes are safer than 11.5' lanes, but conversely there is noevidence that 11.5' lanes are safer than 12' lanes. The problem is that there are few 11.5'lanes to study. We strongly suggest a formal research project along these lines if NMDOTadopts 11.5' lanes on significant stretches of highway. Thus in 5 or 6 years, we could eitherformally change the standard or drop the initiative if problems appear. Now would be the timeto consult the research bureau on setting up the parameters for a formal study (controlsections will be needed).

Lastly please consider the attached document a formal part of our comments, for morediscussion on 4:1 slopes. The document points out that according to the AASHTO RDG, 4:1slopes are not considered recoverable, and thus adoption of such will require careful attentionto establishing and maintaining adequate clearzones.These thoughts and others will be formalized in a letter addressing the VE initiative.

Would you like to meet again before this?

Eric Worrell, P.E.Field Operations (Design) EngineerFHWA-NM Division604 West San Mateo RoadSanta Fe, NM [email protected]

Documents

Ve Workshop Design-construction Report 42005