Proposed Practice for Alternative Bidding of Highway Drainage Systems (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

69 Implementation of the Recommended Practice Implementing an alternative pipe system selection and bidding process gives contractors the ability to choose from among alternative drainage pipe systems that are of satisfac- tory quality and are equally acceptable to the owner. This will promote competition and lower costs, and is the primary driver pushing the implementation of such a system. The previous federal mandate (23 CFR 635.411) that required competi- tion with respect to the specification of alternative types of drainage pipe systems judged to be of satisfactory quality and equally acceptable on the basis of engineering and economic analyses was eliminated with the signing of MAP-21 in July 2012. Specifically, 23 CFR 635.411 was revised to ensure that states have the autonomy to determine culvert and storm sewer material types. Regardless of this change to the federal regulations that eliminates the mandatory require- ment for competition with respect to alternative types of drainage pipe systems on projects receiving federal funding, the underlying economic and technical merits of alternative pipe bidding that gave rise to the original desire to increase competition through alternative bidding have not changed. 14.1 Implementation Strategy The overarching strategy for successful adoption of the Recommended Practice is to provide key decision-makers in stakeholder organizations with a credible and persuasive value proposition. The value proposition will clearly and spe- cifically communicate how their organizations will benefit from adopting the Recommended Practice. Providing relevant examples of the benefits and costs associ- ated with adopting the Recommended Practice will be essential to developing a credible value proposition. This leads to a multi- stage implementation strategy, with the initial phase focused on those stakeholders that will likely derive the most value from adopting the Recommended Practice, and progressively focusing on stakeholders who may perceive the Recommended Practice as providing lesser value to their organizations. 14.2 Key Benefits of Adopting the Recommended Practice The Recommend Practice has several key characteristics that are intended to provide value to stakeholders: • Comprehensive framework for increasing competition in pipe system selection with a resulting reduction in overall costs to the agency • Streamlined, technically sound, and consistent approach to pipe system selection • Integrated use of best available practices • Expandable framework enabling modifications when new methods and materials are developed • Flexible framework enabling extensive customization to address individual agency needs 14.3 Stakeholder Identification Different stakeholder groups will provide varied opportu- nities and challenges to successful widespread adoption of the Recommended Practice. Thus, identifying stakeholders who will be involved in decisions directly impacting the successful adoption of the Recommended Practice is an important ele- ment of implantation. The following stakeholder organizations and personnel groupings have been identified as important to successful adoption of the Recommended Practice: • State and local transportation agencies – Engineering departments 77 Materials 77 Geometric Design 77 Drainage 77 Structural 77 Geotechnical – Maintenance departments – Programming, estimating, and contracts departments C H A P T E R 1 4

70 • Owner agencies, associations, and policy makers – AASHTO (including subcommittees) – ACEC – ASCE – ASTM – FHWA – NAS/TRB/NCHRP • Industry – Trade and industry associations 77 American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA) 77 American Water Works Association (AWWA) 77 National Corrugated Steel Pipe Association (NCSPA) 77 Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) 77 Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association – Pipe manufacturers – Pipe suppliers – Contractors and pipe installers • Engineering consulting and design firms • Academic practitioners and researchers 14.4 Implementation Steps The following subsection outlines the current thinking on how best to develop the implementation plan. The imple- mentation process outlined in the following subsections highlights the importance of engaging across all stakeholder groups, and proposes to engage the identified stakeholder groups at appropriate points throughout the implementa- tion plan. The following subsections are organized by stakeholder groups. This layout is intended to provide an accessible frame- work to facilitate panel and other stakeholder input, and to approximate the chronological order in which the plan may be developed. The actual implementation will be a fluid process without sharply defined stages and groups. 14.4.1 Early Adopter State DOTs This implementation stage is focused on those DOTs that have been involved in any aspect of this project, and those DOTs that have expressed a particular interest in the results of the project regardless of their involvement to date. The goal in this stage will be to demonstrate the potential value derived from use of the Recommended Practice and to assist these early adopter DOTs in implementing the Rec- ommended Practice on a limited number of projects. It is suggested that an online webinar be conducted early in this phase to summarize the technical, financial, and performance benefits of the Recommended Practice. The lessons learned from the feedback from this first stage and the demonstrated benefits from using the Recommended Practice on the pilot projects will be used to modify subsequent stages as needed. Potential steps to focus on these stakeholders are as follows: • Maintain relationships developed through the pilot project phase of NCHRP Project 10-86. • Host recorded webinars to disseminate information and provide practical help with implementation. These recorded webinars can be accessed at a later date at the convenience of the stakeholder. • Provide a practical manual or guidebook for use as a quick- reference supplement to the final project deliverable to aid in implementation. • Conduct in person or small group web meetings to discuss and assist with implementation. The parties executing the implementation plan stage would likely engage in some or all of the following steps: • Preparation of materials outlining the value to be derived from adoption • Presentation and discussion of the materials through webinars or live meetings • Preparation of materials to assist in actual implementation (practical manual or guidebook to use as a quick-reference supplement to the final project deliverable) • Support, as needed, to implement the Recommended Prac- tice on a limited number of projects 14.4.2 Additional DOTs This stage is focused on providing information and train- ing to additional DOTs who were initially hesitant to adopt the Recommended Practice. The likely target audience will be local agencies, drainage design engineers, materials engineers, and estimating/contracts personnel from DOTs that have not yet adopted the Recommended Practice. The plan should address how best to promote the Recommended Practice on the basis of it delivering more cost-effective drainage solutions with a minimal amount of staff re-training. Lessons learned from the implementation of the Recom- mended Practice with the early adopter DOTs will be applied. Benefits derived from the Recommended Practice by the early adopter DOTs will be collated into a clearly communicable package. Potential steps for these stakeholders to focus on include the following: • Information provided to inform and allow for internal dissemination within DOTs – Electronic and printed materials and brochures – Written testimonials from early adopter DOTs – Presentations, recorded and hard copy, prepared to facil- itate internal discussion on the Recommended Practice

71 (assuming that a champion at a specific DOT can be identified) • Training opportunities – Hosted and recorded webinars – Workshops at conferences and conventions 14.4.3 Industry Stakeholders As the Recommended Practice is implemented by the early adopter DOTs, it will be necessary to provide information and training to other industry stakeholders. The target audiences include trade association representatives, contractors, pipe manufacturers, and pipe suppliers. The implementation plan should seek to engage these groups through exposure to the details and benefits of the Recommended Practice. The promotion of the Recommended Practice will be achieved through the following: • Technical conference presentations • Hosted webinars • Printed materials • Distribution of white papers • Local industry and professional meetings • Articles in trade publications 14.4.4 Owner Agencies, Associations, and Policy Makers Potential steps for these stakeholders to focus on include the following: • Engagement of AASHTO subcommittees (Standing Com- mittee on Materials) • Presentations at conferences and conventions • Articles in academic journals • Articles in trade publications 14.4.5 Engineering, Consulting, and Design Firms Potential steps for these stakeholders to focus on include the following: • Presentations at conferences and conventions • Articles in academic journals • Articles in trade publications 14.5 Academic Practitioners and Researchers Potential steps for these stakeholders to focus on include the following: • Presentations at conferences • Articles in academic journals • Opportunities to include research results in future updates to the Recommended Practice • Sponsored events at conferences • Providing copies of the Final Report on NCHRP Project 10-86 (published as NCHRP Report 801) to faculty and researchers involved in highway drainage to stimulate further research relating to the Recommended Practice 14.6 Trial of the Recommended Practice Through Pilot Projects As part of NCHRP Project 10-86, a review of current practices and trialing of the newly developed Recommended Practice to alternative bidding were undertaken. The pilot- ing was intended to trial the Recommended Practice across a range of agency policies on real highway projects. The Rec- ommended Practice was applied using the current policies from nine different agencies. It incorporated, within a single framework, the wide variety of factors and criteria required to successfully bid alternative pipe systems. The successful trials illustrate that the Recommended Practice facilitates an alterna- tive pipe system selection procedure that is flexible and techni- cally sound. This was demonstrated clearly when previously unspecified pipe system alternatives were identified. The trial evaluations indicated that differences across current agency practices were shown to materially affect the proposed alternative pipe systems. This is a reflection of the differences in local experience; the variations in local climate, terrain, and subsurface conditions; the risk tolerance of given agencies toward various design criteria; and the structure of alternative pipe selection processes. The variation between agencies in the criteria and reference values used for alternative pipe system selection and the variable treatment of pipe system types in standardized codes (e.g., AASHTO) present hurdles to using the Recommended Practice as a single nationally applicable tool that does not require individual agency modification. Even with the variability observed in the current state of practice across United States transportation agencies, the Recommended Practice to alternative bidding can effectively be implemented as a standard framework at this time. Addi- tionally, the Recommended Practice was developed with the intent of allowing for future refinement and development of a nationally standardized fully developed design and bid- ding tool, if further standardization is achieved across certain aspects of pipe design policies. 14.6.1 Pilot Project Agencies A number of state agencies were approached for potential participation in the pilot project phase of NCHRP Project 10-86.

72 Participating agencies were chosen based on their interest and willingness to participate and in an attempt to access a wide range of agency policies applied to diverse drainage, clima- tological, and environmental conditions; technical evalua- tion criteria; and bidding practices. Specifically, variations in agency approach to design, alternative/optional bidding, post-installation inspection, geographic location, and other factors were considered in approaching and selecting agencies for participation. The following agencies participated in full pilot projects and in baseline pilot projects. 14.6.1.1 Full Pilot Projects • Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) Project 79484 in North- umberland County, Pennsylvania, with a pre-bid esti- mated construction cost of approximately $2.1 million. It included pipe diameters ranging from 15 in. to 24 in. as well as elliptical pipe elements. • Missouri DOT (MoDOT) J5P0951B Project in Osage County, Missouri, had an estimated construction cost of approximately $25.5 million. It included pipe diameters ranging from 15 in. to greater than 54 in. and a number of special design installations. 14.6.1.2 Baseline Pilot Projects The following agencies agreed to participate in the baseline pilot projects: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) • Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) • Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) • Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) • New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) • Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) The research team selected the MoDOT J5P0951B Proj- ect as the reference project for use in the desktop baseline pilot project assessments because it contained a wide range of drainage requirements. The baseline pilot projects consisted of applying the current procedures for pipe system design from each baseline pilot project agency to the MoDOT project. Also, limited number of additional and targeted supplemental reference evaluations were added to the pipe systems within the MoDOT reference project to more fully evaluate certain technical considerations. These additional reference evaluations were targeted to expand the range of evaluations to include a broader range of hydraulic, structural, and durability condi- tions. The inclusion of additional durability assessments for the baseline pilots was key as the original MoDOT project showed benign durability conditions within allowable limits for all agencies. Additional evaluations assuming low, medium, and highly aggressive environmental conditions were added to challenge the ability of the Draft Recommended Practice to eliminate low durability pipe systems in certain instances. The research team would like to gratefully acknowledge the participation of all pilot project agencies and parties involved in survey and trials of NCHRP Project 10-86. Many agencies provided their time and willing partnership during the project. In particular, MoDOT and PennDOT made projects available for piloting of the Draft Recommended Practice. This provided significant and helpful feedback. Some of the key findings and insights garnered from the pilot projects are summarized by topical group below. 14.6.2 Summary Discussion of Results from Pilot Projects A number of key findings and lessons were obtained from performance of the Recommended Practice trials during the pilot project phase of NCHRP Project 10-86. Summary findings included the following: • The Recommended Practice matrix approach was found to be – Systematic and Structured—A key when evaluating full drainage system inventories – Transparent—Results of all steps are presented – Flexible—Easily adapted for use with all pilot agencies • Hydraulic design is mature and practice is standardized • Use of baseline Manning’s n values simplifies evaluation of full inventories and is considered necessary for manual application of alternative bidding • Structural design is mature, but application is highly vari- able in practice – LRFD structural design is not widely implemented – Complications with thermoplastic pipe exist based on the lack of meaningful structural pipe classes. • Science and application of durability methods are not fully mature – Significant variation in EMSL between different methods – Considerable variation in basis for RCP and CMP methods – No widely accepted methods for estimating EMSL of thermoplastic pipes. Single values often assumed regardless of environment or pipe – Interim approach for the Recommended Practice is to use a range of durability methods but encourage further development • Durability is evaluated at some level by most agencies – Site specific environmental parameters (pH, resistivity, sulfates, chlorides) are universal parameters considered for corrosion and degradation

73 – Abrasion is typically evaluated on a qualitative basis – Methods to couple evaluation of abrasion and corrosion are not widely used. Increase in EMSL from coatings is not standardized • The effectiveness of an alternative bidding protocol is predicated on the use of a broad inventory of pipe systems • Short hand inventory codes, similar to those used by MTO and NDOR provide benefit and facilitate tracking and transfer of design output into bid documents and quantity sheets • Post-installation inspections are an essential part of alter- native pipe bidding to reduce risk of premature pipe system failure • The inspection requirements defined in current AASHTO guidance are thorough and robust and are recommended for increased adoption • Inspection methods that provide objective continuous records of quality indicators along the length of the pipe are preferred and are to be encouraged • Agencies that impart standard application of post- installation requirements typically allow a wide range of pipe systems • Widespread adoption of alternative bidding will likely require automation (most likely a software application) – Existing automated routines, e.g., Caltrans, FDOT, and MTO, each have some good features but none is com- pletely 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 The differences between current agency practices can materially affect the proposed alternative pipe systems. This is a reflection of the differences in local experience, the risk tolerance of given agencies toward various design criteria, and the variability in agency structures for alternative pipe selection. The variation between agencies in the criteria and reference values used for alternative pipe system selection present a hurdle to using the Recommended Practice as a single nationally applicable tool. With the variability observed in the current state of practice across U.S. transportation agencies, the Draft Recommended Practice can effectively be implemented as a standard framework at this time, with the Recommended Practice developed to allow for future refine- ment and development of a nationally standardized fully developed design and bidding tool if further standardization is achieved across certain aspects of pipe design policy. The stan- dard framework provided by the Recommended Practice can be easily adopted with agency-specific guidelines to create agency-specific tools. The Recommended Practice provides a standardized framework to ensure technical robustness, completeness, and transparency, while maintaining the ability of agencies to use their local experience to assist in alternative pipe system selection. The clarity in evaluation criteria provided by the Recommended Practice matrix approach should facilitate an agency’s ability to more easily update policies in line with changes in applicable codes and material advances. 14.6.2.1 Potential Barriers to Implementation The following were identified as potential barriers to the implementation of the Recommended Practice: • Lack of harmonized standards – Installation conditions and backfill vary greatly across agencies (AASHTO code also varies classifications based on pipe type) – DSL requirements vary • Fill height tables based on AASHTO LRFD are onerous to develop and are not nationally applicable or available for all pipe systems – The lack of standard LRFD compliant structural clas- sification for thermoplastic pipes creates confusion and complications – With no standardization of input parameters, fill height tables are often based on a mixture of criteria and codes that is not always compatible with equitable pipe system selection • The lack of a recognized national pipe inventory and accep- tance criteria limits the formation of a “national market” and requires agency-specific acceptance of new products • While the NTPEP program provides an avenue for collab- orative national evaluation of highway materials, there is still limited overlap between agency processes to approve new pipe products – If process could be defined in terms of component material’s characterization, controlled field trials, and monitored performance on trial highway projects, for example, it would encourage greater product innovation as there would be more certainty as to what was needed to gain acceptance in the marketplace • Alternative bidding will require additional design effort – The Recommended Practice needs to be streamlined, easy to follow, and standardized to limit the additional design burden. An automated design tool is likely required to achieve widespread adoption – A goal of alternative bidding procedure is to offset any additional design effort through cost savings realized by increased competition in highway drainage items

74 The Recommended Practice has been designed in such a way that the results of future advances in research, standardization, and practice can be readily incorporated. The Recommended Practice retains an agency’s flexibility to manage risk for each design component as per agency preference but makes a clear distinction between disqualifications made for technically justi- fiable reasons and disqualifications made for agency or designer preference. In summary, portions of the current state of practice within national and individual agency specifications and guide- lines result in barriers to widespread use of tools without the need for agency-specific specialized modifications and limit the ability to generate nationwide charts and design aids. 14.6.2.2 Benefits of Alternative Pipe Bidding System The successful trials of the Recommended Practice dur- ing the pilot project phase illustrate that the Recommended Practice framework facilitates an alternative pipe system bidding procedure that is flexible and technically sound. This was demonstrated clearly when previously unspecified pipe system alternatives were identified when the Recommended Practice was applied. The Recommended Practice was applied using policies from nine different agencies and has been able to incorporate, within a single framework, the wide variety of factors and criteria required to successfully bid alternative pipe systems. Pilot project transportation agencies that have implemented some form of alternative pipe system bidding have noted increased competition across pipe system types. A case study of a similar system to the Recommended Practice can be found by observing the benefits seen at the MTO since development of its alternative bidding procedure in 2007 and the subsequent roll out of the system in 2009. Through personnel communication with the principal inves- tigator, Mr. Art Groenveld, Senior Engineer, Drainage Design, MTO, noted the following insights based on the implementa- tion of the alternative bidding over a period of several years: • 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 • MTO is actively pursuing further streamlining via HiDISCD software 14.7 Automation of Alternative Bidding Manual application of the Recommended Practice across all (or the majority of) available pipe types for each drainage system item in a project was shown to increase design time from current practice. The increased design effort is principally a result of two factors (1) the wide range of agency policies and procedures that the Recommended Practice was designed to address and (2) the wide range of available pipe systems. The matrix approach and flow process adopted were devised to facilitate eventual automation. Several agencies (e.g., Caltrans, FDOT, and MTO) have made significant progress in automating alternative/optional pipe system evaluations and these systems are currently in active use. This confirms that the process of alternative pipe system selection can be successfully streamlined and automated. The NCHRP Project 10-86 Recommended Practice was intended to provide a streamlined, rational, and reliable design approach to identify a wide range of technically appropriate pipe system alternatives on a consistent and unbiased basis with the intent of increasing product competition and reducing overall costs for procuring highway drainage systems. Such a process is ideally suited for further streamlining through use of a software design tool, and the NCHRP Project 10-86 panel and the research team believe that the availability of an acces- sible and easy-to-use tool to trial the Recommended Practice would greatly enhance acceptance and implementation of it. Most design engineers readily adapt to new software, and this option would encourage more rapid implementation.