Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 29
29 different pavement types. The use of end-result or issues. Based on the evaluation, the agency can further performance-related specifications helps to reconcile refine the process for use in future projects. Agencies also any inherent biases in these areas. Performance-related should develop a mechanism for periodic evaluation and specifications also promote contractor innovation and review of the process. allow for more opportunity for competitive bidding. The selected alternatives should be comparable and 6.3 Selection of Alternatives competitive to provide reasonable chances for contrac- for Alternate tors to win the bid with either of the alternatives. How- Pavement-Type Bidding ever, it should be recognized that alternatives cannot always be competitive, especially during periods of sig- The alternative-preference screening matrix should be used nificant price fluctuation. for identifying equivalent pavement types. As discussed in 9. Involve industry in developing and reviewing the proposed Chapter 4, when an alternative meets the economic criteria and process. there are no noneconomic risks that outweigh its inclusion, There may be concerns and conflicting interests among then the pavement type is considered a qualified alternative. stakeholders over many aspects of alternate bidding proce- When there are two or more qualifying alternatives, their dures, such as the appropriateness of rehabilitation strate- advantages and disadvantages are analyzed using the screening gies, LCCA inputs, and other design-life assumptions. matrix. The alternatives are ranked and assigned numerical Upon drafting the process, the agency should actively scores. Based on the final scores, the screening matrix indicates involve the stakeholders in reviewing and finalizing the whether there is a clear preference among the alternatives. proposed process. When there are no significant differences among them, the 10. Implement the alternate bidding procedure. alternatives may qualify for alternate bidding. Some level of The agency can evaluate the proposed process through engineering judgment may be necessary in establishing the implementation projects. Efforts should be made to iden- equivalency of alternatives. Figure 16 presents a flow chart of tify lessons learned, stakeholder feedback, and impending this procedure. Qualifying alternatives (see Figure 15) Evaluate alternatives using Alternative Preference Screening Matrix Is one Alternative YES Select most- significantly preferred preferred alternative over others? NO Consider preferred alternatives for alternate bidding Is project suitable for NO alternate bidding? YES Develop cost Next step: Plans, Select preferred adjustment factor specifications and alternatives from LCCA estimate Figure 16. Selection of equivalent pavement-type alternatives for alternate bidding.