National Academies Press: OpenBook

Value Engineering Applications in Transportation (2005)

Chapter: Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire

« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Questionnaire
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary Responses to Questionnaire." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Value Engineering Applications in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13869.
×
Page 124

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.

75 APPENDIX C Summary Responses to Questionnaire

76 Always 8% 49% 43% 0% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 6 CO US DOT 11 GA US DOT 13 ID US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 25 MS US DOT 29 NV US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 38 OR US DOT 39 PA US DOT 42 SC US DOT 43 SD US DOT 44 TN US DOT 48 VA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA PART 1 Always used for projects over $25 million and encouraged for projects less than $25 million. Question 1 VE is required by state law on all highway projects with estimated costs of $5 million or more. It is also used on some smaller projects and on processes upon request. Our Value Engineer guidelines are included in our Project Development Process (PDP) at two different steps. The PDP is for Major and Minor projects exceeding $20 million in total project cost. VE is conducted during Preliminary Engineering and Detailed Design stages. We use VE in our every day practice. The above answer refers to formal VE activities. Often for projects, rarely for processes and products. We currently use value engineering abiding by the FHWA requirements which is total construction costs of $25 Million and on NHS. Construction uses VE on a case by case basis. Currently only used on large projects (>$25M). When our Policy is approved (expected soon), the threshold will be reduced to $10M. POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION We require VE to be done on all projects at or above $ threshold set by FHWA. Often times VEs are done on projects with cost thresholds below FHWA requirement as deemed necessary. Penndot's threshold is $20 million which is less than FHWA's which is $25 million. Does your agency utilize VE in the development of its projects, processes, and products? We utilize VE on projects $25 million dollars or more or on projects that we see a need. Several VE studies and accepted VECPs (during construction) per year. Comments All projects meeting certain criteria are considered for a VE study. The VE Manager and Project Manager determine if a study is warranted. Only on transportation projects. We have not performed VE on processes or products yet. Primarily on engineering projects and engineering standards, with very little use of VA in non-engineering processes. Presently investigating the introduction of Value Analysis into our Management Decision Process. VE studies are undertaken on large projects as mutually agreed upon between FHWA Division Office and NHDOT. Projects over $25 million. Projects - Often, Processes and products - Rarely. SDDOT projects on the NHS system are generally less than the $25M threshold established, therefore we haven't internally formalized the VE process. However, we have other processes such as: (1) formalized Scope process prior to or as soon the project enters the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program which is being done for most projects, (2) Corridor Preservation studies, (3) Roadside Safety Audit reviews at 25% stage for the design performed on selected projects, and (4) other reviews as design proceeds. FOR SOME OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, RESPONSES ARE BASED ON THE SDDOT SCOPE PROCESS AS NOTED IN LIEU OF THE VE PROCESS. 30 VE Studies 2000-2004. Most studies are performed during NHI Course. It is used often in the development of projects but rarely in the development of processes and products. The VE program implemented by the CFLHD provides for the systematic review of its multiyear highway program to identify areas for VE studies. Reconstruction projects over $1 million are selected for VE. Often Rarely Never We followed FHWA VE requirements. First VE study conducted Jan. 2004 with schedule to conduct min. 1 study per quarter. Only to satisfy FHWA $25 million rule. We follow FHWA guidelines. In project development on projects that meet the criteria.

77 Always Often Rarely Never Statutory requirement 51% 22% 11% 16% Required to obtain funding 38% 24% 22% 22% 29% 49% 18% 7% Reduce/avoid cost 36% 56% 9% 7% Reduce/avoid maintenance 16% 47% 27% 13% Improve safety 16% 51% 20% 13% Meet schedule 7% 31% 29% 33% Other 2% 4% 11% 7% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 7 CT US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 39 PA US DOT 44 TN US DOT 49 WA US DOT 52 WY US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA Improve project performance We also use VE where we need a process to break down silos between divisions. To get an equal or better product at a lower cost is normally the driving force. Often used to validate the scope of a project. At present we use only Value Engineering projects mandated by federal law but, on the ones that we do, we strive for the other motivations listed. All noted always factor into our motivation to use VE. Other-improve constructibility. We currently use value engineering abiding by the FHWA requirements which is total construction costs of $25 Million and on NHS. Construction uses VE on a case by case basis. At one time I believe it was an FHWA requirement that all projects (W/FHWA funding) which exceeded $25 million in construction cost undergo a VE process. CDOT maintains this policy at the same threshold policy. The Federal Highway Administration recognizes VE as an effective tool for both cost reduction and product quality improvement. Areas of study are selected to achieve the greatest savings while maintaining product quality. Question 2 Looking at introduction. POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION What is the primary motivation for your agency to use VE? "Other" refers to validating project design/concept. Comments Other - sometimes one motivation for a VE study is to achieve a concensus amoung all stakeholders. The primary reason for completing a VE project study is to meet the requirements of FHWA. The VE Study is completed early in the final design phase, just after the NEPA/Section 404 process review. The Department benefits by having independent professionals assess the project. Throughout the final design development phase, ongoing value engineering adjustments are implemented, but not through an extensive VE study. PART 1

78 Yes 84% No 14% Do Not Know 2% 0% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 7 CT US DOT 13 ID US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 29 NV US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 44 TN US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY Procedure 1-15-1 of our Facilities Development Manual details our policy. Copy is attached. PART 1 Comments Did Not Respond Procedures are being developed and will be included in the cities project management manual for capital projects. Looking at introduction. Policy memo, Project Manager Manual, Value Engineering Coordinator Manual, web site. Very limited. Design Manual Chapter 315. Required by state statute. Currently in draft form, under development. We follow FHWA guidelines as established in the "Federal Aid Policy Guide" dated 9/8/99, transmittal 24. VE Policy and VE Procedures for Design and for Construction. Federal Highway Administration. Established Policy is not followed or mandated by upper management. Policy contained in Project Development Manual PDM Sec. 2-05, Stan. Spec's 104-6. Policy approval is pending. NHDOT does not have any defined policy regarding VE applications. We are part of the project planning and development process. We use FHWA requirements. Established as Engineering Directive from Chief Engineer. Thin. We are currently following FHWA VE guidelines and working on a Department wide VE policy. No completion date at this time. Small amount of guidance in Stewardship Agreement between CDOT and FHWA, Project Development manual. The "Policy" is any project w/const costs over $25 million. "Procedures" are loosely defined by past practice. CDOT only does 1-3 VE Studies in a given year. Question 3 POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION Does your agency have any defined policies, procedures, and/or guidelines for VE? All projects over $10M or are of a complicated nature will be considered for a study. All projects over $25M and are on the NHS will have a VE Study. VE coordinator will conduct studies on an as-needed basis or for projects with cost of $25 million or more. The VA program has policy and guidelines.

79 Policies Guidelines Procedures 45% 36% 20% State/Provincial agency 39% 34% 27% Other agency 0% 25% 75% Value community 9% 30% 61% Other (Please Specify) 17% 50% 33% Do not know 0% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 11 GA US DOT 10 FL US DOT 12 HI US DOT 30 NH US DOT 43 SD US DOT 49 WA US DOT 52 WY US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA If so, where do the policies, guidelines, and/or procedures governing the use of VE in your agency come from? AASHTO POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTIONPART 1 Question 4 Federal agency As a state policy, we are to consider any project over $4 million as a candidate for VE. SDDOT policy, guidelines and procedures for Scope process. Comments TOPPS document 2450 contains GDOT procedures. It is attached to the email. The Department's policies and procedures for VE incorporate the statutory requirements of the Federal Government. NHDOT relies upon FHWA's guidance in the performance of VE studies. Looking at introduction. By other I mean our own Agency, OMB. We establish our own guidelines and procedures for VE. Our's was originally basd on FHWA's NHI training. All of our policy and guideline documents were developed by MTO or consultants working for MTO, with some advice and assistance from other agencies and consultants. Some of our procedures that we use in workshops were developed by Caltrans. All projects over $25 million are VE. The Federal Lands Highway has established a VE program in compliance with the requirements found in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-131 on VE and developed criteria for use in applying VE to its program in accordance with DOT Order 1395.1A on VE. VE Textbooks, FHWA-HI-88-047 and FHWA-HI-88-051 provide the guidance for development of VE Studies.

80 Always Often Rarely Never 55% 20% 7% 18% 38% 34% 17% 11% 13% 53% 21% 13% 3% 29% 37% 31% 6% 9% 11% 74% 3% 36% 28% 33% 0% 25% 36% 39% 11% 33% 22% 33% 0% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 10 FL US DOT 17 KS US DOT 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 36 OH US DOT 38 OR US DOT 43 SD US DOT 52 WY US DOT 57 NF CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT Do not know Question 5 POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION Also, projects are selected based on our Project Development Process and the District Office's request. Projects with construction cost of greater than $50 million are considered for VE study. PART 1 Improve safety Meet schedule Other (Please Specify) Potential value improvements - "other". We selected projects that meet FHWA VE requirements. When a project has an unclear scope or there is uncertainty with the proposed design we may call for a VE study. Our criteria is to select projects that provide the highest potential for value improvement including: expansion projects, new interchanges, high complexity reconstruction, projects with complex traffic control and staging, route planning studies, projects with multiple stages, corridor studies, projects undertaken with other stakeholders, projects with extensive or expensive environmental or geotechnical requirements, projects over $10 million and policies, standards and business processes. Federally funded projects only. Projects are selected on an annual basis based on their complexity, cost and potential for improvement at all levels. Projects are less than $25M therefore no formal VE study is done. Scope on projects is performed to determine timing of project, sequencing of work, limits of project, type of improvements, design parameters, cost estimates, schedule, etc. Requested by Project Development Team and Projects requested for NHI Training Course. Projects that meet the $25 million federal statutory requirement and the $20 million Department threshold are always selected for VE. Other - on one instance a project was way over budget; the primary purpose of the VE study was to bring the project within budget. Statutory requirement - NHS VE Mandate. Other - District Identified (voluntary) Study - to solve technical, budgetary or stakeholder issues. Other - Management recommendation. VE program quota Statutory requirement Agency cost threshold Project complexity Stakeholder involvement Comments Looking at introduction. How are projects selected for VE studies?

81 >90% 54% 81 to 90% 8% 51 to 80% 18% 31 to 50% 4% 11 to 30% 2% <10% 6% N/A 8% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 5 CA US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT PART 1 Question 6 POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION What percentage of the VE studies performed by your agency is on the National Highway System? Comments We have a marine highway system that often requires VE because of the federal cost thresholds. Caltrans has a very large workload imposed by the NHS mandate. Note the mandate is triggered by NHS, $25 million and federal aid participation. Looking at introduction.

82 Always Often Rarely Never Senior manager 32% 32% 18% 18% 16% 32% 29% 23% 38% 36% 8% 18% 4% 14% 39% 43% 7% 23% 27% 43% 20% 26% 26% 29% 27% 9% 18% 45% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 10 FL US DOT 11 GA US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 43 SD US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 57 NF CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 NY US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA Who has the responsibility to select the VE team members? Cost benefit analysis done by consultants, reviewed by senior managers. Various District Production Administrators, and our Structural Engineer Administrator. Typically VE coordinator works with project manager, project manager's supervisor and consultant to pick team. Project managers supervisor can veto team members. Senior managers are involved when it is a special project involving several divisions. When we work with a municipality, they have a say in who is on the team. Looking at introduction. By this I assume you mean the final responsibility for selecting. Candidates for consideration are selected by the VE firm, and final selection is made by us. Each District has a VE Coordinator that works with Sr. Mgr. to select team members. When the VE process is used, an assigned VE Coordinator would select the team members. For Scope process the line manager assigns project to technical staff to perform Scope, who in turn invites other technical staff to aid in the scope. Local governments may provide team members on a project in their jurisdiction. The VE Manager works with the project manager to select the team members. Department has master contracts with three VE consulting firms, allowing the project manager to quickly obtain services of VE team leader and some team members. After selecting one of the firms, the project manager and the VE team leader jointly discuss project goals and anticipated expertise needed. The experts could come from the department, from interested stakeholders, or be supplied by the consultant. Consultants are tasked to provide the staff and expertise necessary to conduct a successful VE study. Question 7 Sometimes a group effort for management approval. POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION All 3 are involved in choosing team members. Comments Most studies are performed by consultants. The District VE Coordinator (DVE) working with the Department Heads have the responsibility of selecting VE Team Members. DVE working with the FDOT Project Manager will ensure that the correct disciplines are on the team. PART 1 VE Consultant selects their Team Members. Consultant Designers select their team members. DOT team members are selected by various managers. Primarily the responsibility of the VE Manager. Usually selected by CDOT Program Engineer and Resident Engineer, in cooperation with Consultant design manager. Chief Engineer w/recommendation from VE Manager. 100% Consultant VE. Project Design Team. Project Manager. The VE studies completed to date by NHDOT were part of the consultant services for the final design of the project. The Consultant selected a qualified VE consultant to subcontract the VE study through and the VE consultant selected the independent team for the VE study at the concurrence of NHDOT and FHWA. The VE Group Manager requests team members from the Department Unit Managers. Line manager VE Manager/Coordinator Technical Staff Consultant - Design Team Consultant - VE Team Other (Please Specify)

83 Always Often Rarely Never 11% 41% 39% 9% 33% 58% 6% 2% 59% 39% 2% 0% 19% 63% 14% 5% Other (Please Specify) 0% 60% 0% 40% Do not know 0% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 10 FL US DOT 18-b KY US DOT 23 MI US DOT 30 NH US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 43 SD US DOT 51 WI US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT Done for Scope also. Looking at introduction. PART 1 Comments Outside interest groups. Selected by Consultant's CVS leader. They have specific project knowledge They are independent of the project It is requested to have those qualified/experienced in specific engineering disciplines to participate as team members. How are the VE team members selected? We use Transportation Cabinet personnel along with a team leader provided by the VE consultant team. This method seems to work well for the VE study procedure. Comments: As part of the VE independent team, we provide the opportunity to have one team member from FHWA and an independent NHDOT staff member to assist and learn from the process. Question 8 POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION Other: How well they did on prior studies; some express desire; working toward CVS. Teams should be structured to include appropriate expertise to evaluate the major areas anticipated within the project. At a minimum, design, construction, and maintenance shall be represented on the team. In the event of specialized projects, individuals with specific expertise necessary to perform a proficient value engineering study should be included in the team makeup. They have specific technical expertise They are available in-house staff See previous comment.

84 Always Often Rarely Never 56% 20% 7% 17% 9% 6% 24% 62% 6% 9% 18% 68% Professional Engineer 29% 39% 10% 22% 36% 33% 13% 18% Similar project experience 13% 51% 15% 21% Other (Please Specify) 29% 43% 0% 29% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 5 CA US DOT 7 CT US DOT 10 FL US DOT 18 KY US DOT 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 33 NY US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 66 Winnipeg CDN CITY What credentials are required for the VE team facilitator? Value Methodology Practitioner (VMP) Technical expertise required for study Associate Value Specialist (AVS) Certified Value Specialist (CVS) Other is professional facilitator/communicator. Other - Familiarity with VE process. Looking at introduction. Comments Have experience in VE Facilitating. The Value Engineer Consultant firm utilized has an extensive background in various aspects of engineering that shows expertise for the majority of the projects ODOT VEs. All VE staff members in Virginia are CVS's. Certification is not required to hold the position, though the department assists in attaining and maintaining certification. Require team facilitator to have a local assistant who is familiar with agency and should have VE training. This is intended to build local talent in VE. VE Team Leader must be CVS, AVS, or VMP. Question 9 For consultants we require a PE and a CVS, for in-house we require a PE and training and desire to obtain a CVS. POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION Not familiar w/certification process. This should correctly indicate that we (as an agency) do not dictate a certain certification. Typically the experienced VE facilitator and team members are hired as subconsultants to the Prime. In perhaps 50% of the cases, State technical staff augment the hired team to lend a certain "this is how we do business" flavor to the process. Most studies are performed by consultants. Division of Design will allow a CVS if the team leader is not registered in Kentucky. The facilitator must be certified by SAVE International. He/She must have a minimum of two years of experience in value engineering on highway projects. NHDOT required the lead VE member be certified for VE studies and to have past experiences. The team also has to consist of Professional Engineers with specific technical expertise in highway/bridge design, soils, hydraulics, construction engineering and right of way acquisition. All of NYSDOT's studies are conducted by VE consultants. As such, in accordance with AASHTO guidelines, a CVS is required to facilitate studies. Caltrans does not require a CVS and P.E. as many other states do. In fact, a license is required for engineering plans and specifications and we do not consider VE to be that type of work. However, Caltrans use of Project Performance Measures has shown that team leaders who are familiar with the topic under study - perform significantly better. Consultant VE Team facilitator's (leaders) must have a CVS and Florida PE. In-house (FDOT employee) VE Team facilitator must have a Florida PE. PART 1

85 Always Often Rarely Never Technical specialist 39% 59% 2% 0% Professional Engineer 13% 56% 13% 18% 5% 17% 21% 57% 2% 36% 16% 45% 5% 20% 24% 51% Previous experience in VE 5% 45% 29% 21% Other (Please Specify) 50% 25% 0% 25% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 3 AZ US DOT 10 FL US DOT 24 MN US DOT 29 NV US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 48 VA US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA PART 1 The team is selected based on the type of project; i.e., a bridge project will have a structural engineer. Question 10 Comments POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION What credentials are required for the VE team members? Have minimum of MOD I training Have FHWA sponsored training Have other formal VE training Most studies are performed by consultants. Team members who have not received formal VE training or participated on a previous value engineering study led by a CVS or DVE may participate on a team; however, there should be no more than two untrained members participating on any one team. The Departments training for team members is MOD I. Individuals with different specialty areas such as construction, design, bridge, maintenance, etc. Looking at introduction. NHDOT requires all team members to be lead by certified VE coordinator and all other team members to be professional engineers. We generally review past experiences in VE studies within the resumes before approving the VE team. Team members are expected, though not required, to have completed VE training, which could be MOD I, FHWA, or VDOT in- house training. No previous VE training or expertise has been required. None required. No previous experience. VE consultant team members must be technical specialists. Agency team members do not always have to be technical specialists. We do not specifically require all team members to be trained in VE but we give preference to VE training or VE experience. The facilitator is the only VE team member whose credentials are specified. Selection of the other VE team members is left to the consultant/facilitator to select team members that complement the task.

86 >100 14% 91 to 100 2% 81 to 90 2% 51 to 80 12% 31 to 50 8% 11 to 30 30% <10 26% Do not know 4% N/A 2% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 10 FL US DOT 25 MS US DOT 30 NH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA We average about 45 studies per year. 38 Highway Project Studies - 5 - Voluntary and 33 - Mandatory and 7 Process Studies. In the last 5 years we averaged about 7 per year. PART 1 POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION Comments Question 11 How many VE studies have been performed by your agency in the last 5 years? For transportation, or for all project types? For Transportation it would be approximately 18 and for all project types it would be 81- 90. Ballpark estimate, based on approx. 5 per year. NHDOT has completed three VE studies within the past five years. This is a guesstimate in that I only have hard numbers for the last 4 years. 57 Department completed 228 studies. Looking at introduction. Procedures are being developed that will provide guidance on when to apply VE and capital infrastructure on projects. There have been 10 VEs completed between 2000 and the first half of 2004. This does not include the value engineering change proposals (VECP) of approximately 2 per year.

87 Director or Commissioner 19% Senior Manager 58% Technical Staff 0% External Agency 0% Other (please specify) 6% Do not know 0% N/A 17% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 6 CO US DOT 7 CT US DOT 11 GA US DOT 12 HI US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 43 SD US DOT 48 VA US DOT 52 WY US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT PART 1 POLICY, GUIDELINES, AND PROJECT SELECTION Question 12 Our VE Coordinator would be considered the same as the VE Program Manager. This person reports to the Administrator of the Office of Production. The in-house VE coordinator and Project Manager assigned to the project report directly to the Directors and FHWA. To the Engineering Design Division Director. Value Management Engineer. Senior Manager - Highways Division Administrator and External Agency - FHWA. Who does the VE Program Manager (if the position exists) report to? Comments If we have a project over $25M, then the SDDOT Chief Engineer would assign a VE Program Manager to assemble a team for a formal VE process. The State VE Manager reports to the Management Services Division Assistant Administrator. The VE program is separate from the technical staff to allow freedom of recommendations, etc. The VE Section is under the Construction Group. The VE Manager reports to the Construction Group Manager. Among other duties, I am CDOT's statewide VE coordinator, and I report to the Project Development Branch manager. Chief Engineer. Engineer of Design. VE Program Management is handled by the Chief Engineers Office specifically the "Special Assistant to the Chief Engineer". Projects over $25 million are typically designed by hired consultants. As such, VE studies are likely to be done in our "Consultant Design Office" but no one person runs them. Reports with findings from VE study The VE Program Manager has other duties as well as VE responsibilities. No specific VE Manager - added duty for State Highway Development Engineer. Looking at introduction. Report to a manager who reports to the chief engineer.

88 Yes 24% No 72% Do Not Know 0% N/A 4% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 3 AZ US DOT 10 FL US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 39 PA US DOT 44 TN US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT 54 BC CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA Comments The VE Manager and his staff are given a budget for training. They attend most in-state training. Training was offered in early 1990's. It has not been done on a large scale since that time. We are supposed to offer training periodically, but there is no budget for VE training. Most of our VE work is done by consultants now. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS Does your agency have a formal policy on VE training? PART 2 Question 13 Informal process. Annual National Highway Institute VE Training Team member training can be satisfied by participating on a team led by a CVS or the DVE or by completing team member training offered by Central Office. Central Office will also offer training in the following areas on an as needed basis: team leader training, life cycle cost analysis, and advanced value techniques. Very brief. MOD I is offered yearly to NMDOT employees. It's encouraged for employees to attend but it is not a formal policy. We follow Federal Aid Policy Guide. Not at present. We are in the process of establishing one. NHDOT has participated in VE training, but does not have a formal policy. A number of staff were trained in VE about 20 to 25 years ago. Looking at introduction. External consultants are used by the city for VE exercises. We require SAVE MOD I but we do not have a policy on who gets trained. Training is available to management and technical staff. The majority of the individuals that are in key positions to deliver the VE program have received training.

89 >10 years 33% 5 to <10 years 12% 3 to <5 years 2% 1 to <3 years 0% <1 year 2% Do not know 0% N/A 51% Did not respond 0% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 30 NH US DOT 36 OH US DOT 42 SC US DOT 48 VA US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA EDUCATION AND AWARENESS Question 14 Comments How long has a training initiative been in place? PART 2 VDOT used FHWA training from 1987 until 1994. We began offering in-house training, equivalent to the FHWA course, in 1994. Training in general has been a vision supported by management for many years at ADOT. Limited training occurred with some staff members early in 1990 and supplemental training occurred over the following decade. We do not have a training initiative in place. Looking at introduction. We do not have a formal policy on VE training, however, twice in the last three years we have had an external instructor lead the SAVE International Module I course. Training in FHWA began in 1975.

90 ≥1000 4% 500 to 999 2% 400 to 499 0% 300 to 399 10% 200 to 299 4% 100 to 199 12% 50 to 99 12% 25 to 49 16% 10 to 24 14% <10 8% N/A 18% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 10 FL US DOT 11 GA US DOT 12 HI US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 25 MS US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 38 OR US DOT 39 PA US DOT 42 SC US DOT 43 SD US DOT 45 TX US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 50 WV US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA 150 60 20 ± 2/10 (±) 350 350 Looking at introduction. In addition to our Director, our VE unit currently has 5 technical VE staff managing or assisting in the management of VE studies. All of these individuals have or will receive VE training. We also train analysts within OMB and other City agencies, including the NYC DOT. Actual # not know. 18 staff. PART 2 Question 15 Approximately 130 staffers have been trained from throughout the 11 Regions and the Main Office of NYSDOT. Approximately 45. 348 The actual number cannot be defined, but is estimated to be less than ten (10). How many of your agency's current technical and management staff have received VE training? Approximately 15 have had some type of VE training during their career. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS Comments 2328 people have been trained; approximately 1500 are currently employed at VDOT. Mark Marek, P.E. and Aurora (Rory) Meza, P.E. Approximately 100. 483 current employees have been trained. We do not have exact count. 30 Actual record during my tenure shows 120 trained, approximately another 100 minimum have been trained prior to that but the records are not available. I suspect many more than this have been trained through train the trainer. 20 625 persons have been trained since 1990. There are less than 8 people trained that still work for ODOT. Approximately 3-5 from early 1990's NHI class on VE. This is just a guess. 65 Since 1981 over 1200 employees have been trained. How many of these are still with Caltrans is unknown. 40

91 >90% 8% 81 to 90% 2% 51 to 80% 4% 31 to 50% 10% 11 to 30% 14% <10% 45% N/A 16% Ref. Agency Category 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 36 OH US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY PART 2 Very few technical and management staff have been trained in Value Engineering. Some of those trained have either left the Department or are not participants in the VE process. Includes Construction, Maintenance and Design Staff. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS Within the VE unit this number is > 90%. Considering all analysts within the agency, this number is lower, perhaps 10%. We do not have exact count. Question 16 Comments All staff going through prior VE training consisted of technical staff. What percentage of your agency's technical and management staff does the number of VE trained staff identified in Question 15 represent? Looking at introduction.

92 >90% 0% 81 to 90% 0% 51 to 80% 0% 31 to 50% 4% 11 to 30% 2% ≤10% 59% N/A 35% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 6 CO US DOT 12 HI US DOT 17 KS US DOT 23 MI US DOT 29 NV US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 42 SC US DOT 44 TN US DOT 49 WA US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT Question 17 Comments PART 2 I know of no CDOT personnel that are certified. However, there could be some. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS What percentage of your agency's VE trained staff identified in Question 15 is certified? None. Currrently only 1 CVS working for WSDOT. None of the staff is certified. None. None. NYSDOT has no staff certified by SAVE International. None. Approximately 5 individuals are AVS. None are certified. None. We have 1 CVS, 6 AVS. Zero. Looking at introduction. No one in TDOT has been certified. No one in ADOT, to my knowledge, is certified. Certified (CVS) consultants are used to facilitate the VE Study. We have no Certified staff. NHDOT has one staff member who was trained in VE, but no certified.

93 Always Often Rarely Never VE methodology overview 24% 16% 39% 21% National Highway Insititute (32 hours) 23% 26% 13% 38% 19% 8% 22% 50% 3% 6% 21% 71% Other (Please Specify) 0% 11% 44% 44% 8% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 10 FL US DOT 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 35 ND US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT PART 2 The Department generally relies on the NHI training for staff. The Department’s VE Coordinator also attends AASHTO conferences. Even though NHI courses are the only ones provided at the NMDOT, the NHI has provided 40 hours of training and certified by SAVE international as MOD I. The VE Manager and one of his staff have attended SAVE MOD I, and SAVE and AASHTO VE conferences. We currently train, mainly in-house, the Caltrans VE methodology. Selected team members (staff) is being briefed about VE methodology by VE facilitator (certified VE Consultant) during VE studies. This is the only class that I know of that anyone at CDOT has taken. Question 18 EDUCATION AND AWARENESS To what level is agency staff being trained in VE? Comments Department currently offers SAVE approved MOD I, MOD II and occasionally FAST training through our VE consultants. Due to agency downsizing and the growing difficulty of getting employees away from their office for 40 hours at a time, strategic objective in place to re-evaluate the way training is delivered. There is nothing defined. VDOT's in-house training program is equivalent to the NHI course. In-house MOD I training is available upon request. A MOD I class is offered every year and MOD II is offered every three years. Looking at introduction. Occasional training through conferences, also incorporating risk mangement into VE, project performance measurement and other techniques. The only training staff receives is when they participate in a VE study as a team member. SAVE approved MOD I (40 hours) SAVE approved MOD II (24 hours) Do not know

94 Always Often Rarely Never Senior management 6% 25% 39% 31% Project management staff 20% 56% 17% 7% Technical staff 17% 63% 12% 7% Consultants 3% 16% 38% 44% Other (Please Specify) 10% 40% 10% 40% Do not know 6% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 10 FL US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 41 RI US DOT 51 WI US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA Nothing defined. Our Value Engineer Consultant has several Certified Value Specialists and Certified Cost Engineers. During past coursework we have provided executive staff with a 1-2 hour summary presentation on the benefits of VE. Question 19 We use 100% Consultant VE Team Members and Facilitators. Past training within NHDOT has been prioritized to Project Management staff and technical staff. The Department does not coordinate Consultant training. Senior management usually finds it hard to attend VE training, MOD I, because it takes too much time. Usually 5 full days (40 hours). VE Team Members only. Other- Agencies such as New Jersey Transit, New Jersey Turnpike, etc. Consultants take external courses. Other includes municipal officials, and a few staff from non-technical offices. Senior staff cannot afford the time for a 5 day course. Since VE program has been in place for over 20 years, most Senior management was trained earlier in their career. As mentioned in previous question, downsizing and increased responsibilities has made it difficult to get senior management to participate in current training program. Consultant training could increase as more outsourcing takes place. Selected team members (staff) is being briefed about VE methodology by VE facilitator (certified VE Consultant) during VE studies. Looking at introduction. Any Cabinet person who is interested in the value engineering process. Other - FHWA employees. None. Technical staff who participate in a VE study as a team member receive minimal instruction at the beginning of the study. No formal VE training is offered. 2 senior management, 11 project management, and 5 technical staff are trained. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS Who is being trained in VE? Comments Currently only the VE staff are receiving training in VE. Local agencies. There is no formal VE training tracking. PART 2 Not aware that any city staff are being trained in VE. Although, a number of staff are familiar with the process.

95 Always Often Rarely Never VE Program Manager 6% 16% 32% 45% 3% 7% 17% 73% In-house technical staff 3% 7% 13% 77% Consultants 54% 15% 13% 18% Other (Please Specify) 46% 23% 8% 23% Do not know 6% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 10 FL US DOT 17 KS US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 38 OR US DOT 41 RI US DOT 44 TN US DOT 46 UT US DOT 47 VT US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA National Highway Institute (NHI), Value Engineering for Highways. NHI VE Course. NHI courses. We are contemplating doing future training with in-house personnel. NHI. No training. FHWA VE courses. Currently it is only done by a consultant but this rarely takes place. Question 20 EDUCATION AND AWARENESS To what level is agency staff being trained in VE? Comments PART 2 In-house project management staff NHI. In-house project management staff has been the greatest asset in training and making staff aware of the VE process. In addition, NHDOT encourages unbiased technical staff to participate in the VE study with the VE team to learn the process and gain an understanding as to the VE process. VE program staff conduct training. One member has an approved MOD I workshop. Do you mean formal training or informal, on-the-job training? (I answered this with respect to formal VE training.) Our agency is outsourced so we use consultants where possible. Consultants provide us with Mod I training. The problem is the course material is often dated and not agency specific. We sometimes augment material with agency specific examples. Looking at introduction. VE Program Manager and technical staff provide supplemental information on agency specific requirements and documentation. No formal training for VE in the department at this time. Other-National Highway Institute. NHI Course instructor, VE Coordinator will instruct the study leader on how to facilitate the course. Other - NHI Course. No training program at this time. For the past 8 years the Department has been using VE Consultants for VE training. On occasion in-house staff will provide refreshers. N/A

96 >$100,000 2% $75,000 to $100,000 4% $50,000 to $74,000 4% $25,000 to $49,000 6% <$25,000 41% Do not know 16% N/A 27% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 6 CO US DOT 23 MI US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 44 TN US DOT 45 TX US DOT 51 WI US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA The budget is based on the need for training. Training is available to management and technical staff and can fluctuate. N/A Question 21 Comments VE Section has money in their budget for training; however the Section has other duties and therefore not all of it is used for VE training. There is not an annual budget. What is the annual budget allocated to training agency staff in VE? Not set annually. Allocate when it is determined to be necessary. Part of the overall VE facilitator contract and VE studies conducted. Looking at introduction No money is allocated. We request training on an as-needed basis and have not been denied in the past. Not aware of any specific VE training budget. Not specifically set aside. No formal training for VE in the department at this time. PART 2 Not sure there is a specific amount of training funding directed to VE. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS Don't have a dedicated budget for training but do have about 2 Module I a year. NYSDOT spends an average of $500,000 per year on consultant-run VE studies.

97 Very supportive 14% Supportive 70% Indifferent 10% Not Supportive 2% Do not know 0% N/A 4% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 3 AZ US DOT 7 CT US DOT 17 KS US DOT 30 NH US DOT 34 NC US DOT 39 PA US DOT 43 SD US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT The Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration strongly supports the VE program. He will normally attend 1st day at VE courses to stress the importance of this program. Question 22 Comments Supportive if we have projects near the $25M threshold. The SDDOT Scope process is similar to the VE process in many aspects, therefore, we perform a formalized scope of the project for most projects. Senior Management is supportive of the VE process developed by KDOT. EDUCATION AND AWARENESS How would you describe the level of Senior Management support VE within your agency? They know the policy is there, but usually say the project will not benefit from VE. Management generally supports recommendations that don't effect schedule. They are indifferent to promoting its use. As an agency, we have not found this process to be particularly valuable. We tend to believe that our projects receive a great deal of technical and cost reduction scrutiny as a result of standard agency review and oversite. PART 2 Looking at introduction. If not mandated through federal criteria, the number of VE studies would be limited, based upon current Department policies. VE is a management tool and the success of an effective VE program is dependant upon management support.

98 Excellent 12% Good 50% Fair 32% Poor 2% Do not know 0% N/A 4% Ref. Agency Category 30 NH US DOT 34 NC US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT EDUCATION AND AWARENESS How would you describe senior management's familiarity with the VE program within your agency? PART 2 Senior Technical Management is familiar, other branches are not. Looking at introduction. Based upon the successful completion of VE studies for the three large NHDOT projects and the presentation to the Senior Management, they are aware of the importance of the VE review. The Senior Management has concluded that valuable project cost savings have resulted by the independent technical review. It is anticipated the Senior Staff will continue to support the future role VE studies through Project Development process. Senior management are kept informed of recommendations from the VE Program; however, interest, attention and positive or negative feedback is seldom heard. Question 23 Comments

99 Yes 54% Similar, but modified 18% No 16% Do not know 8% N/A 4% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 11 GA US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 44 TN US DOT 49 WA US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA We also add another phase after we develop the ideas, we develop scenarios or alternative sets. These scenarios consist of a complete set of design alternatives that can be compared in their entirety to the proposed design. Looking at introduction. Our Phases are: Selection, Investigation, Speculation, Evaluation, Development, Presentation, Implementation, and Audit. CFLHD uses the following job plan - Selection, investigation, speculation, evaluation, development, presentation, implementation, audit. Working towards including Project Performance Measures into our VE studies. The general basis of the VE process that NHDOT has undertaken has followed this methodology. As taught in the NHI course. APPLICATION SAVE methods are utilized, but the scope of some VE studies is limited, thereby limiting the applicable areas of the SAVE method. We have added an extra phase "Critique Alternatives" between "Development" and "Presentation". We have nine steps, they also cover Selection, Implementation and Program Review. The team does not spend a lot of time developing life cycle costs. Question 24 Comments PART 3 Does your agency utilize the SAVE International Value Methodology Standard (October 1998) as the basis for the VE Job Plan?

100 Always 10% Often 51% Rarely 35% Never 4% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 23 MI US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA Value Engineering at the detailed design stage paved the path to a two step VE Process: VE during the Preliminary Engineering Stage and at Detailed Design. It has helped to trouble shoot areas before detailed design, add more value and save dollars. Value Engineering is a vehicle to welcome new ideas and innovations. Many of the recommendations that are implemented are the result of an innovative alternative. VE recommendations are often innovative but little documentation exist as to the acceptance of offered innovation by Management. Even though VE is a great problem solver - it is not really being utilized, today, as a tool of innovation. But broadens thinking. Seems to always result in at least a few recommendations that end up getting implemented. Looking at introduction. The VE program currently focuses on cost-effective project-specific improvements. Many of our projects are similar in scope. We rountinely get several of the same core recommendations on each VE study conducted. Slight adjustments in the direction of the program may be beneficial to add to the value added procedures currently in place. Additional focus may be placed on design and construction procedures/techniques. APPLICATION In your opinion, does VE contribute to innovation within your agency? Comments It often contributes to lower life cycle costs but rarely to new/innovative ideas. It helps create an innovative environment that considers more ideas besides the old and familiar. Innovations of construction techniques are rarely the conclusion of the VE studies. Most recommended actions remain within current construction practices. However, the most recent VE study has recommended a innovative approach for bridge construction which will be assessed by the structural design team. PART 3 Question 25

101 Always Often Rarely Never Cost model 67% 24% 10% 0% Space model 6% 11% 37% 46% Traffic and/or safety model 13% 37% 37% 13% Quality model 14% 14% 42% 31% Risk model 3% 25% 48% 25% Business process model 3% 14% 39% 44% Cause and effect analysis 8% 26% 32% 34% FAST diagram 25% 39% 20% 16% Evaluation matrix 36% 48% 14% 2% Criteria matrix 18% 38% 33% 10% Performance measures 24% 32% 32% 11% Other (Please Specify) 0% 0% 20% 80% Do not know 10% Ref. Agency Category 18 KY US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 35 ND US DOT 39 PA US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA Question 26 Which VE and related tools are typically utilized during a VE study for your agency? PART 3 APPLICATION d) Constructibility Improvement, and e) Operational Performance Improvements. The project cost estimate showing high dollar items is used extensively for the VE study. Comments Looking at introduction. To date VE exercises have used the FAST diagram as the basis of analysis. We use the methodology taught through the NHI VE course. The basis of the three VE studies completed by NHDOT has utilized the typical cost model approach. Other considerations were given for performance and risk models. At the NMDOT we perform a qualitative survey at the end of every VE study. We try to measure the improvement, as the result of the VE study, of the following qualitative elements: Where possible, we will use explicit highway safety techniques to estimate impacts of VE alternatives. This typically involves using CMF to model collisions. The problem is that the science is never complete. There has only been one completed to date. a) Safety Improvement, b) Minimization of Public Inconvenience, c) Minimization of ROW and or Environmental Impacts, Feasibility and suitability evaluations are also used. The feasibility evaluation deletes those alternatives that the team believes are unrealistic and, therefore, unacceptable. The suitability evaluation lists the advantages and disadvantages and rates them from poor to outstanding. The rating is used to guide the team during the Development Phase ensuring the best ideas are developed first.

102 Always Often Rarely Never Quantitatively 22% 59% 14% 5% Qualitatively 22% 58% 14% 6% Other (Please Specify) 100% 0% 0% 0% Do not know 14% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 13 ID US DOT 30 NH US DOT 33 NY US DOT 37 OK US DOT 43 SD US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT Quantitatively based on addendums prior to letting or Construction Change Orders post-letting. Qualitatively based on Partnership for Highway Quality awards. I have no idea what you are asking here. Most of the evaluations were based upon subjective quantitative and qualitative approaches. The evaluation approach was left to the certified VE specialist and the VE team. Number of change orders, addendums, cost, and by construction review teams. NYSDOT is in the process of developing a new set of performance measures. The aim is to track both qualitative and quantitative meaures. Use Caltrans Performance Measures. PART 3 Comments I'm not sure what this question is referring to. Quantitatively when possible. APPLICATION How is project performance/quality established and/or measured?Question 27 Looking at introduction of Value Engineering. Presently budget planning drives the work down in the field.

103 Always Often Rarely Never 37% 57% 4% 2% 5% 35% 44% 16% Manual calculations 27% 66% 5% 2% Spreadsheet calculations 9% 59% 27% 5% 0% 24% 40% 36% Other (Please Specify) 0% 0% 0% 0% Do not know 4% Ref. Agency Category 5 CA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 30 NH US DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT Question 28 PART 3 Comments APPLICATION To what level does your agency develop the shortlisted ideas within the time allotted for the workshop? Computer modeling and simulation Hand drawn/photocopy sketches CADD drawings Looking at introduction. We occasionally use VISSIM traffic modelling integrally with our VE studies. We do not have workshops. The VE Study Team. We use 5 day VE studies. On the most recent VE studies, the Department required the project consultant to supply CADD technician to assist the VE Team. The VE Team also has the use of PC units and technical software as determined needed. We normally have a work station at each workshop.

104 Always Often Rarely Never Life cycle costs 17% 48% 33% 2% Collision/crash costs/societal benefits 0% 20% 55% 25% Travel delay costs 0% 30% 50% 20% Recurring costs 9% 48% 39% 5% Other (Please Specify) 4% 0% 0% 0% Do not know 4% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 10 FL US DOT 29 NV US DOT 30 NH US DOT 33 NY US DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA Travel delays and collision/crash/societal benefits are normally investigated during the shortlisting of alternates, costs may or may not be computed. PART 3 Looking at introduction. Most assessments for life cycle costs are limited during the intensive one-week VE study. The importance and timing of this type of evaluation is left to the certified VE specialist to determine application in the VE study. We do not have workshops. Question 29 Other - Construction cost savings. Although the travel delay is marked rarely, this is happening more and more. Since the use of project performance measurements our VE program has spent a lot less time doing Benefit/Cost Analysis. Comments APPLICATION To what level does your agency calculate/determine the following project costs within the time allotted for the workshop? The team does not spend much time on calculating life cycle cost. An estimate on construction savings is developed and a comment on how this idea will effect future savings or costs. "Other costs": Construction of select project elements. All costs, other than Construction and life cycle costs are generally the only costs analyzed during the VE workshop. Other costs are determined independent of the workshop.

105 Always Often Rarely Never 8% 45% 30% 18% Paired comparison 8% 56% 23% 13% 16% 61% 20% 2% 20% 67% 9% 4% 5% 40% 35% 20% 3% 41% 43% 14% 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Do not know 2% Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 5 CA US DOT 30 NH US DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA PART 3 Comments Quality/performance criteria Evaluation matrix Salability of the idea to Senior Mgmt. Champion emerges Group consensus through discussion Looking at introduction. Typically, focus is on issues/items that have the potential to provide the same function/outcome at a lower life cycle cost. We do not have workshops. Sometimes we screen the ideas by voting with dots, with each team member having about the same number of dots as the number of ideas we have time to develop. Sometimes we quickly screen ideas through gut feel to reduce the list to a manageble size. Then we use the top 4 or 5 performance criteria and quickly compare the remaining ideas against the criteria. We use a -2,-1,0,1,2 with 0 representing equivalent to proposed design. See comment for item 26 for additional information. Shortlisted ideas are also selected using a method of graphically weighting alternates. Ideas are rated based on appropriate criteria or objectives. The criteria is arrived at by determining "what will affect the idea if implemented?". The objectives are determined by asking "what are the end results we would like to achieve?". A numerical rating is computed, the alternatives are ranked, and the best alternates are selected for development. APPLICATION How are the shortlisted ideas selected for development during the workshop? Other (Please Specify) Gut feel The VE team is directed to review all options for cost savings and enhancements (with cost increases). The team determines the practicality of each option in their evaluations and recommendations. VE usually done by consultants. Caltrans uses a paired down version of the performance measurements criteria to evaluate. Question 30

106 Always Often Rarely Never 40% 47% 13% 0% 44% 56% 0% 0% 28% 60% 13% 0% 38% 53% 6% 2% 25% 60% 15% 0% 17% 58% 17% 8% 13% 60% 26% 2% 23% 60% 17% 0% 17% 68% 11% 4% 69% 31% 0% 0% 18% 33% 44% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 11 GA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 36 OH US DOT 48 VA US DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT Caltrans uses a paired down version of the performance measurements criteria to evaluate. If we have reached agreement on actions/alignments/other issues in the public involvement activities and/or environmental studies, we do not change those with VE. PART 3 Question 31 They are generally addressed through an evalution matrix. These criteria are also weighed when the team details the advantages/disadvantages of the recommendation. Comments Do not know Flexibility for the future Project costs User costs/benefits We do not have workshops. These items are a part of every VE project. Their effects are evaluated during each VE Session and how they directly or indirectly aid in the development of the project. The Department evaluates the recommendations from the VE team based upon meeting the design standards for the project, cost enhancements, community and environmental commitments, and general project design expectations. Our user costs are determined through use of our Road User Cost Manual. Stakeholder expectations/issues Driver expectations/human factors Aesthetics Schedule impacts Road safety Constructability Traffic staging Environmental impacts Other (Please Specify) APPLICATION Does your agency typically address these issues during the workshop? User costs/benefits are discussed but may not always be quantified. Looking at introduction. Where possible we calculate collision costs. We don't typically use the delay or travel costs, but we will use some element of travel or delay in our performance criteria. These factors are part of the evaluation process and are addressed in the recommendation development.

107 Always 2% Often 22% Rarely 44% Never 32% Ref. Agency Category 10 FL US DOT 18 KY US DOT 30 NH US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 43 SD US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA CFLHD has a Technology Development Team that identifies and promotes new, underused, and emerging technologies to help us in our business of building roads and bridges. The goal is to use these technologies to make our jobs easier, better, faster, or more cost-effective. A District VE recommendation that affects a standard or specification gets forwarded to the Central Office responsible for that standard or specification. VE has been used to assist in the development of guidelines and manuals. Construction VE procedures may have more impact on standard drawings. Comments PART 3 Question 32 APPLICATION Does your agency use VE to develop or update technical standards, specifications, and/or guidelines? Not Necessarily Value Engineering but Life Cycle Costing is/was used in our Standards and Policy development. The Department has not used the results of VE studies for updates of technical standards or specifications. The results of VE studies have been useful to provide guidelines for the preliminary engineering evaluations that are forthcoming to define alternative approaches and solutions for project needs. Yes, when a successful idea emerges through the VE process it works its way into a spec change or update or even a new spec as required. VE development of the Specifications and Standard Drawings are available; however, the Department has previously elected not to use this method. Various VE Alternatives/items have caused us to go back and review some of our design standards and construction methods. Some alternatives forced us to do more research for better results with less costs. Although we are just beginning to address this opportunity, we realize it will take time to implement an effective practice that is routine. This is done indirectly through our SCOPE process.

108 Always 4% Often 12% Rarely 45% Never 39% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 10 FL US DOT 18 KY US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 36 OH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 43 SD US DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA VE is primarily scheduled for reconstruction projects over $1 million. Question 33 PART 3 We use VE on large scale roadway rehabilitation jobs with the FHWA requirement. Comments I don't recall any in the last 4 years. APPLICATION Does your agency use VE on routine or less complex projects (such as rehabilitation and/or intersection improvement projects)? It is available for every contract but rarely used. It is up to each district coordinator to work with Sr. Mgr. to determine if a VE may be beneficial regardless of the cost of project. SDDOT Scope process. VE is rarely used when the project cost is less than $2 million. A Value Engineering Session can be utilized on any project upon request. However, the primary driving factor to selecting a project to be VE'd is the $20 million and higher threshold. We use VE on small routine projects when we are not sure the project has the right scope, or we are unsure of the design and we want to validate the design. Looking at introduction. If they meet other criteria such as our cost threshold. No formal process is utilized. Ongoing value added, engineering evaluations continue throughout the Department’s design process which mirrors the VE process, but through an informal review process by technical staff. I'd like to, but no/little support so far. If the project meets FHWA VE requirements. These types of projects are used during the training workshops.

109 Yes 40% No 52% Do not know 2% N/A 6% Ref. Agency Category 4 AR US DOT 5 CA US DOT 11 GA US DOT 16 IA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 33 NY US DOT 36 OH US DOT 38 OR US DOT 39 PA US DOT 42 SC US DOT 43 SD US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 50 WV US DOT E. Presentation Phase – present recommendations and team findings. Project description, VE issues considered, calculations, summary, recommendations. Working towards including a table of contents. Basically, we follow FHWA, NHI Standard forms. We have a fairly standard format and style, but it is tailored to the specific project. Comments 1. Information: design presentation, documents used, field trip (if applicable), cost model, 2. Function Analysis: identify functions/costs of selected elements, identify opportunities for value enhancement. Consultant facilitator expected to submit to us a draft report for review and a final report for our records. We use 5 pre-qualified firms to conduct our VE studies. 3. Creativity: generate ideas, narrowing (first cut). 4. Evaluation: grouping, matrix analysis, advantages/disadvantages. • Participant List Is typically left up to the NMDOT VE Consultant to develop a VE report format. However, we try to standardize NYSDOT relies on the VE consulting firm to provide reports in their own format, pending NYSDOT approval. We look for formats that are generally consistent with our/AASHTO's VE process. The report should track the team’s deliberations and considerations throughout the entire VE process and should contain sufficient detail, including sketches, calculations, analysis, and rationale to allow for prudent assessment of recommendations. We use the format established by our VE Consultant. Same format established in NHI VE course. as much as possible different consultant report styles. A. Investigation Phase – Background information, function analysis, team focus. VDOT's VE reports are produced as a report from a Microsoft Access database. Data are entered by the Regional VE Manager; the report is automatically produced in standard format. We have specific Scope documents, which are attached. N/A for VE project reports. A MS excell workbook that is the report template. It can be found on the AASHTO VE Web site at www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/design/aashtove/toolbox B. Speculation Phase – Creative, brainstorming, alternative proposals. C. Evaluation Phase – analysis of alternatives, life cycle costs. D. Development Phase – develop technical and economic supporting data. • Specific recommendations & costs • Proposed Design • VE Alternative Cost Calculations • Life Cycle Cost Estimate • Performance Criteria FL US DOT plan. The format of any report should contain, as a minimum, the following: • Evaluation by Comparison • Detail Findings or Analysis • Basic Functions • Project History (including project criteria, commitments, and constraints) • Research Sources • VE Alternative Description • Existing Design • Executive Summary PART 3 5. Developed Recommendations (description, function, feasibility, life cycle cost, dwgs, calcs.). The study summary report shall be organized in sections by areas of focus consistent with the value engineering job We use VE Workbook, Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-051 See: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/value Question 34 10 3 AZ US DOT element/function/cost/complexity model, FAST diagram (optional), elements selected for analysis. 30 NH US DOT The Department has given great latitude to the VE team to define how the final report will be formatted and 32 NM US DOT 45 TX US DOT Individual Consulting firms establish the format. VE Coordinator. The reports are prepared by the team leaders whether they be in-house or consultant and we do not require a specific format. APPLICATION Does your agency have specific documentation formats for VE project reports? how to document the conclusions of the VE study. FHWA VE Workshop • Design observations • Implementation Plan • Potential Study Areas

110 PART 3 Question 34 APPLICATION Does your agency have specific documentation formats for VE project reports? Ref. Agency Category 56 NB CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA Comments 1. Identification of the project; 2. A brief summary of the problem; 3. An explanation of why this project was selected for study; 4. A functional evaluation of the process or procedure under study; 5. All information gathered by the group relative to the item under study; 6. A complete list of all the alternates considered; 7. An explanation of all logical alternates investigated, with reasons why they were not developed further; 8. Technical data supporting the idea(s) selected, with other factual information to assure selection of the most favorable alternate(s); 9. Original costs, cost of implementing the alternates being proposed, and cost data supporting all savings being claimed; 10. Acknowledgment of contributions made by others to the study; 11. Steps to be taken and the timetable for implementing the alternate(s) being proposed; 12. Before-and-after sketches of the items under study. We have a minimum amount of information required that is identified in the item. VE Scenarios - VE Scenarios documents the individual scenarios. The scenarios consist of mutually exclusive alternatives that are grouped together into a comprehensive scenario that can be compared to the original design. Measurement of the performance of the scenarios will also be documented. VE Proposals - Documents the VE Proposals and Design Suggestions. Project Description - Describes the project and the proposed design. Includes observations made during the site visit. Includes a list of documents provided to the VE team. Rely on format developed by consultant. Looking at introduction. Executive Summary - Provides an overview of the project, the VE alternatives, scenarios and implementation decisions, and the VE Study Summary Report. Implementation Action - The Implementation Action section documents the dispositions of each alternative in the final report. The final status or changes made to alternatives or scenarios subsequent to the workshop shall be documented in the implementation action section. Idea Evaluation - Lists all of the creative ideas and the idea evaluation (screening). Includes a discussion of any assumptions involved in the idea evaluation such as life span or condition of project elements etc. Value Engineering Process - Summarizes the study job plan, the agenda, and workshop participants. Describes the pre-event preparation including a table of project issues and workshop team skill sets. This is intended to document the issues we expected at the pre-event and the team we built to meet these issues. Project Analysis - Documents the results from the application of the VE tools used during the study and summarizes the key findings that guided the VE team’s work. Includes the FAST diagram, cost and other models, performance measurements (including definitions) and weighting of the performance measurements. When a Highway Safety and Value Review analysis is undertaken before the workshop, the results of the analysis will be included in this section. 61 ON CDN DOT

111 Yes 56% No 40% Do not know 0% N/A 4% Ref. Agency Category 4 AR US DOT 5 CA US DOT 7 CT US DOT 10 FL US DOT 11 GA US DOT 16 IA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT Please see attached document: APPENDIX N - Value Engineering in Design, section 7.3. The established procedure is not followed but an alternate method is used with no accountability. • Accept for further study (what is missing, and study by whom). I run the Decision meeting immediately following the VE recommendations with those MDOT staff present, w/VE Team and design consultants with us. We decide one of 3 outcomes: PART 4 Comments After the recommendations are submitted, the ideas are reviewed and commented on by the designer. These are (2) A meeting is held to review all comments and determine whether the ideas should be recommended for implementation. See our VA team guide for our implementation procedures at "www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/va" (1) VE ideas are submitted to various technical units throughout agency for review and comment. returned to the VE Section. If the VE team does not concur with the designer's response, it is escalated. Question 35 (4) Final summary report prepared and provided to FHWA. Project Manager is to report to VE Coordinator on status of VE Team recommendations. • Accept for implementation into Design. The implementation plan, included in the study summary report, should identify the person who will be responsible for the implementation of the changes that have been approved by management. In addition, the plan should address the impact on funds, letting date, manpower requirements, consultant resources, design and construction schedules, and any other impact resulting from team recommendations. Generally, the recommendations are reviewed by Road & Bridge Managers and those having added value are approved. VE ideas are usually considered on projects under construction through the Division of Construction. (3) Ideas and recommended actions are presented to upper management for approval. An informal Inplementation Committee is established between the State Project Review Engineer and the Design Project Manager. Documentation and consensus is required for implementation. • Reject and list 2-3 specific reasons. Project team members (decision makers) review all VE ideas and decide which idea is accepted for further study or rejected. VE team submits recommendations to upper management for concurrence on recommended items. IMPLEMENTATION Does your agency have a defined procedure to review and assess submitted VE ideas? 3 AZ US DOT VE submits comments to our Planning and Development group. It is evaluated and comments are provided back. Those comments are addressed and a revised plan submitted. Differences are worked out if possible, and if the scheme is acceptable, it becomes the preferred alternative. The Department does not have a defined process, but has generated an informal process with the VE studies completed to date. Once the VE team’s recommendations are completed, the in-house technical team evaluates the recommendations and provides an in-house recommendation to support the implementation of the VE ideas and reasons why certain components cannot be implemented. This assessment is reviewed through senior staff at NHDOT and with FHWA. All recommended actions are carried forward into further studies and implementation. Internal reports are written to document Departmentís action and provided to FHWA. After presentation of VE recommendations, VE team leader and Project Manager/Project core team decide on timeframe, when they will respond to VE recommendations.

112 PART 4 Question 35 IMPLEMENTATION Does your agency have a defined procedure to review and assess submitted VE ideas? Ref. Agency Category 36 OH US DOT 38 OR US DOT 39 PA US DOT 41 RI US DOT 42 SC US DOT 43 SD US DOT 44 TN US DOT 45 TX US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA The CFLHD Project Manager and Design Consultant assigned to the project evaluates the submitted VE ideas and determines the applicability for implementation. Formal value engineering change proposals (VECP) are submitted for review by a multi-discipline group to determine acceptance or rejection of the proposal. Each study includes a presentation to senior management at the end of the study. A decision on recommendations is made by the Project Development Chief responsible for the project within 30 days. Design VEs are evaluated by headquarters Highway Geometrics Group. Construction VEs are submitted to the Chief Engineers Office and routed to the appropriate groups for review and comment with final decision being that of the Chief Engineer. Reviewed in-house with staff. Then approved by consensus. Comments Project Development Team by consensus decides the disposition of the recommendations. Process under development. Generally, each idea is read by two VE staff for the following: Is the idea clearly stated? Is it a good idea? Does the costing make sense? Is it sensitively written so as not to offend the designer? Is it politically sensitive?, etc. Under development. Recommendations are sent, in the VE report, to identified managers of disciplines which will be impacted by the recommendation. They respond to the Regional VE Manager. Their responses are compiled into a format and sent to the department's Chief Engineer for Program Development, who has the final approval authority. Appeals afterwards are sent to him with justification for the appeal. District personnel initiate VE ideas based on feasibility & district evaluation. The project manager must respond to each of the recommendations in the VE decision document. An implementation meeting is held with local management. The procedures are not formalized, but they should be. This is a weakness in our program. Looking at introduction. After the final VE Report is received, a VE Review Meeting is scheduled. At this meeting, the VE Alternatives are discussed and the decisions are made to accept or reject the VE Alternatives. All rejections must have a sound basis for not being accepted. Yes for Scope. N/A for VE process. We have a Value Engineering Study Approval Committee that reviews and approves the recommendations in the VE study reports. The Committee is comprised of various department and section heads within the SCDOT.

113 Yes 66% No 26% Do not know 4% N/A 4% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 7 CT US DOT 10 FL US DOT 16 IA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 38 OR US DOT 43 SD US DOT 48 VA US DOT 50 WV US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA Incorporation of accepted project-specific VE study ideas are monitored by the Project Manager. Monitoring the implementation of VE ideas on a global basis does not have a formal process, but are incorporated into projects with suitable requirements. Done on a project specific basis, typically through the design review phase. We write a Summary of Results report following the implementation meeting that tallies the Accepted, Partially Accepted, Rejected, Further Study and Open recommendations. Project managers are responsible for implementing VE proposals. Yes to a certain extent. The VE coordinators are supposed to track results, but this is not always done. Looking at introduction. Accepted recommendations are reported in an annual report. There is no process for assuring that an accepted recommendation is actually implemented. Question 36 The DVE shall have the responsibility to monitor and report on all projects in the implementation process. The DVE must be aware of the progress of time critical implementations and report to management as problems arise or delays occur. The DVE’s responsibility for implementation monitoring shall end upon receipt of implementation concurrence from the Project Manager. The Project Manager will be responsible for modification of the project reports, plans, and documentation. Final project savings or cost avoidance shall be calculated based on actual team recommendations or modified recommendations approved by management. Only to the extent that the ideas usually require changes to the contract drawings and the technical details are developed and reviewed subsequent to the VE process. Comments To report to FHWA on an annual basis. No - we have enough work getting our implementation results. It is assumed that if the designer accepts the recommendation that it is implemented. Also the VE Section follows up with the Project Manager in order to get a better estimate of the cost savings for the recommendations implemented. Project teams will submit their decisions of all VE ideas to VE Coordinator for yearly reporting to FHWA. We monitor implementation to fulfill FHWA reporting requirements. We should - but VE is only 1 of my hats/jobs. Not formally. Any recommended VE alternates are carried through by the project team and the resident engineer. We ask the Regional Offices to report to the Main Office Design Quality Assurance Bureau the disposition/implementation of each alternative. Theoretically yes. However, we need to improve the process to document such recommendations implemented. Monitoring of the VE implemented ideas are the responsibility of the Project Manager. We always require a decision to be made. Since we stay involved in the pipeline process, we are aware of any changes incorporated. Project Manager is to report to VE Coordinator on status of VE Team recommendations. VE Coordinator checks with Project Development Team. IMPLEMENTATION Does your agency monitor the implementation of accepted VE ideas? Project Managers/designers are sent the notice of the Chief Engineer for Program Development's approval. They are required to initial each approval, indicating that that item has been incorporated into the project plans. These initials are returned to the VE program for inclusion in the study file. The VE Group maintains a data base containing proposed recommendations, cost reduction and other data to report to the FHWA. (only) Yes, for Scope. N/A for VE process. At the VE Review Meeting, the Design Consultant is present and they indicate whether it will or will not be a problem to incorporate the VE Alternatives into the Design. However, we do not monitor the modification costs (if any) of the design consultant to incorporate the VE alternatives into the design plan or check with construction to see how the VE alternatives helped/hurt the project. PART 4

114 Yes 62% No 36% Do not know 0% N/A 2% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 6 CO US DOT 10 FL US DOT 23 MI US DOT 26 MO US DOT 29 NV US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 36 OH US DOT 43 SD US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA Monitoring of VE program performance is done at the FHWA Headquarters level. Comments PART 5 The Central Office in coordination with the Districts will provide a quarterly report to management detailing the progress made during the current fiscal year. The Central Office will also compile and submit to management an annual report reflecting the program accomplishments for the fiscal year. To report to FHWA on an annual basis. This is reported once per year; It is the same report required by the FHWA. We develop a benefit/cost ratio. Question 37 MONITORING Does your agency monitor VE program performance? Process under development. Just started this fiscal year (July 2003). We will begin monitoring performance once our policy is implemented. We prepare an annual report for the Federal Highway Administration. Looking at introduction. To a very limited degree. This is a weakness in our program. We don't have defined measures to establish program success. We look at any trends in the design that seem to be common on some of our VE Alternatives and incorporate them back into future project designs; we look at the value added to the projects such as safety features, and we review the cost savings vs. the initial project cost. Yes, indirectly for Scope. A report is created for FHWA based on our Scope process. The only monitoring effort is the annual report. The only measure in place is that all projects over $25 million must have a study. Internally - No. Externally - Yes, to report to FHWA annually. Beginning development of VE program performances.

115 Always Often Rarely Never 65% 24% 6% 6% 65% 29% 3% 3% 73% 27% 0% 0% 16% 32% 26% 26% 80% 20% 0% 0% 12% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 7 CT US DOT 10 FL US DOT 26 MO US DOT 29 NV US DOT 36 OH US DOT 43 SD US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 51 WI US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT PART 5 (1) VROI - Value Improvement = VA Study Costs Question 38 Number of projects reviewed Number of VE ideas accepted Value of avoided cost/cost savings N/A MONITORING If yes, how does your agency monitor VE program performance? (2) Project Development Timing vs. Study Timing (3) ROI Project Savings Study Costs As stated in question number 37, we monitor the same information required in the FHWA report. Comments Quarterly VA Program performance reporting: Again, these are not monitored at this time but will be under our new policy. The Districts are monitored quarterly on progress of completing their work plan submitted at the beginning of each fiscal year. The measure is actually % of work plan completed, but we don't use number of projects completed as a measure in the annual report. Above items are easy to measure - but do not necessarily quantify program performance. To accurately monitor VE program performance one must quantify "value" added to projects. "Value" = performance/cost. We are modifying Caltrans methods to fit our program. We survey project team about their satisfaction with the process to try to measure customer satisfaction. VE Program performance is monitored by reviewing the Quality of the VE Alternatives that were developed, the dollars saved, and the value that was added to the project. Values from Scope process. Looking at introduction. These issues are documented annually to FHWA. Other - VE study cost. Increase in project performance Other (Please Specify) Included in project performance are improved operational performance (level-of-service, safety, maintainability), improved constructibility, and reduced environmental impact. In addition WSDOT measures: minimized environmental or R/W impacts, enhanced operational performance, improved con- structibility, compressed schedule, and partnership or consensus building. The only monitoring effort is the annual report. The only measure in place is that all projects over $25 million must have a study.

116 Yes 52% No 34% Do not know 10% N/A 4% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 4 AR US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 7 CT US DOT 10 FL US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 36 OH US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT Quarterly VA Program performance reporting: Comments PART 5 We develop a benefit/cost ratio. Figures to calculate this are reported annually. Question 39 Looking at introduction. This is also reported to FHWA. We refer to this as Return on Investment (ROI). Noted in annual report to FHWA. We compared the VE Study cost in the beginning to see the ratio of dollars spent for the study vs. the dollars saved on the project from the VE Session. Looks at return on investment. We used return on investment methods before but discontinued practice. NHDOT informally assesses the cost of VE study to the capital cost savings. MONITORING Does your agency compare VE study investment to capital cost savings/avoided? (1) VROI - Value Improvement = VA Study Costs (2) Project Development Timing vs. Study Timing (3) ROI Project Savings Study Costs

117 Director or Commissioner 24% Senior Manager 52% Technical Staff 6% External Agency 4% Other (Please Specify) 6% Do not know 2% N/A 6% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 10 FL US DOT 16 IA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 23 MI US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 52 WY US DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 69 Fed Lands FHWA PART 5 Looking at introduction. FHWA and AASHTO Value Engineering Technical Committee Members. The VE Staff try to measure the program performance and suggest what areas can be improved. This information is reported to senior management and FHWA in the Annual Report. The Administrator of the Office of Production and the VE Coordinator review the VE Program on a regular basis. FHWA VE Coordinator also reviews the VE Program with us. Chief Engineer and Deputy Secretary for Highway Admin. Senior Manager - when reported. VE program measures are reported to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner (Chief Engineer) as well as through FHWA Division Administrator. External Agency - FHWA Question 40 FHWA Annual Report. Annual report to FHWA Comments External is the FHWA. The State Value Engineer presents mid-year progress and end of year results to the Department's Executive Board. A VE report is completed for each VE study and VECP completed. Physically, these reports are transmitted to the Federal Lands Highway Program Administrator (FLHPA) for compiling. MONITORING At what level of management in the agency is the performance of the VE Program measured and reported?

118 Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 11 GA US DOT 12 HI US DOT 16 IA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 38 OR US DOT 42 SC US DOT 43 SD US DOT 44 TN US DOT 45 TX US DOT 46 UT US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 50 WV US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT NYSDOT has a well-established procedure in place that clearly identifies the post-study activities. The procedure sets time limitations associated with post-study review of the VE recommendations. The time limitations ensure that recommendations are responded to in a timely manner, thereby increasing the likelihood that the recommendations are implemented. The fact that the Value Engineering methodology has proven to be an effective design tool for the purpose of increasing the value of a project, including avoiding unnecessary expenses. 10 FL US DOT Organization, institutional knowledge in our districts - all districts are aware of VE, including conducting VE studies and the VE program. Following the VE process has proven to be an effective problem solving methodology. NHDOT’s process for VE studies are being developed as the importance of the process is accessed on the limited studies completed to date. It is expected that the Department will be embracing future VE studies. 5 good Consultants performing VE studies. Knowledgeable in-house staff who can adjust to specific project criteria, and established time frames. Creates team work and can-do attitude. Availability of good local CVS facilitators. Procurement flexibility in providing highly qualified team members. Well established procedures for carrying studies and VA program management. The choice of consultants that lead the value engineering teams. Database: recently improved this strength by replacing an existing database with a user friendly Windows based system that tracks existing indicators. Can be read-only accessed by all Department employees. Department Education: VE studies provide one of the only if not the only setting that employees can work together and learn what different parts of the Department do. Design can learn from construction and maintenance. Strategic Planning: VE Group meets annually to develop strategic plan. Identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Performance Measures: Program is measured for performance and that is reported to senior management. Staff position for VE program. Doing the VE Study at the Concept stage. This allows for more buy-in since the project has not been designed and eliminates the need to redo work. Also allows for more creative ideas. VDOT's VE training program is accepted statewide. Whether used as a team member or individually, the training assists staff in performing their duties. Support, The agency's only CVS is senior management. Support by senior management and Division/District Engineers. Wisconsin has a 'major projects program' and that program was recently reviewed for consistency using VE techniques. This effort is expected to be repeated in the future. Do not use to the extent we should but have usually been successful when completed. Upper Management support has always been strong in TDOT. They have recognized since the early years that VE is a major asset to the Department. SCOPE will be performed on all projects prior to STIP to determine timing of project, limits of project, type of improvements, design parameters, cost estimates, schedule, etc. Performing VE at the Preliminary Engineering stage and not just during detailed design. VE in design is strong in some regions. The ability to provide a value engineering specialist to facilitate a study when the districts request them. VE Staff strives to maintain a viable VE program. Our program is only based on projects that are $25 million and more. North Dakota has very few so we do not do a lot of VE. Question 41 PART 6 We encouraged all projects within the agency that meet FHWA VE requirements to be studied using VE methodology. Because we feel that there's a potential for cost savings and improvements in projects. Just beginning formal process with much enthusiasm. First study was major success! Will generate interest in future studies. An "up front" review of plans and concepts theof original scope of the project. Also, we do not fabricate savings from an action we would not do. The awareness of the availability of the VE tool. Comments Recognized Process: The VE process is recognized by Department Management as a process that can help improve the value of a project. Stability of VE Group: Minimum turnover in the VE Coordinator position over the past 5 years, has allowed the group to develop stable processes and incorporate strategic planning. FUTURE NEEDS What aspects of your agency's VE program do you consider the strongest? Why? We offer the NHI course every two years and do not have a problem filling the class. This gives us a good pool of people to do VE Studies. The VE process allows for a thorough review of a project's design plans and helps with quality control. The Highways Division has many experienced engineers from most disciplines in highway engineering. This enables much flexibility in selection of VE team members for a given project.

119 Question 41 PART 6 FUTURE NEEDS What aspects of your agency's VE program do you consider the strongest? Why? Ref. Agency Category 54 BC CDN DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY Strengths: Ability to bring in the best talent that is out there; customization of the team for each project; the "all-on-the-same- team spirit" with which we work with agencies and their designers. Policy is that VA and VE are performed on any project over $5 million. We have a clear document as to VA VE process. The availability to the contractor of an opportunity to change aspects of a contract for the betterment of the overall project. The ability of a contractor to share in the efficiencies and the savings. We focus on improving value and scoping projects rather than cost cutting. We do VE studies even though there is no law requiring this. Looking at introduction. Comments

120 Ref. Agency Category 2 AK US DOT 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 11 GA US DOT 12 HI US DOT 16 IA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 29 NV US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 35 ND US DOT 36 OH US DOT 37 OK US DOT 38 OR US DOT 41 RI US DOT 42 SC US DOT 43 SD US DOT 44 TN US DOT 46 UT US DOT 47 VT US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 50 WV US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT Lack of a formal VE training program. Timely notification of potential projects to be inspected. Lack of support from Project Managers. Training, consistent application. Knowledge sharing: Sharing the VE study results/recommendations with Department and FDOT consultant community. This is an area of improvement identified on our strategic plan. The thought that VE is "cost savings" and the push for cost savings, when at best these "cost savings" would have been realized during our normal design process. Performing VE just on FHWA requirements. All large scale projects (state or federal funded) should be considered for VE. The overall project costs for ODOT's projects vary and rarely exceed the mandated $25 million threshold. Approximately 95% of our projects are less than $10 million and are simplistic in scope that does not warrrant VE studies. A formalized VE process is not used because projects are less than $25M. Scheduling the VE studies has always been a problem. Many times studies will be scheduled only to find that, at the scheduled time, project development has slowed or necessary project information is unavailable. Time constraints during construction. PART 6 Don't use any MDDT staff on studies - this VE is a mystery - only do VE when required for FHWA. I don't write and distribute annual VE reports. I have to "discover" jobs needing VE - No self-reporting by Project Managers/non-Systems Managers. Support for implementation of VE recommendations. FUTURE NEEDS What aspects of your agency's VE program do you consider the weakest? Why?Question 42 Comments 10 FL We need retraining in VE. Our existing staff was trained in early 1990's and many have retired. Do not have a person dedicated to VE. No formalized or written procedures. VE is accepted as required by law. VDOT managers see VE as a problem-solving tool only and as a required step in project development. Trained team leaders. The majority of our trained team leaders have promoted into positions that no longer allow them to take the time needed to lead a team. VECP. US DOT Placement of qualified VE Team Members. Obtaining buy-in to the VE process. Many Design Project Managers and senior managers do not want to do VE studies and do not want to implement the recommendations. The weakest part of the program is that Project Team Leaders and Design Teams do not use the VE tool as often as they could. We have very few projects over $25 million, so we do not do a lot of VE. This comment would apply to the remaining questions. Traditional classroom training: Today's downsized Department (reduction of 2500 employees in last 5 years) requires a new delivery method for training. Identified as an improvement are on strategic plan. Not having a written VE policy at this time but we are working toward having a policy established sometime in the near future. Minimal involvement and time spent on analyzing processes and procedures. Training and Management. Need strong management support for VE. Many of our trained staff have retired recently. More emphasis is needed on VE Standards and processes. Some reluctance to try different methods or products has sometimes resulted in a low rate of acceptance of VE recommendations. The Highways Division currently does not have environmental engineers. Also, because of the ever-increasing number of projects and decreasing of staff, the amount of time spent on VE is kept to a minimum. Reluctance by designers to volunteer non-mandated projects for study. One of our major challenges is the duration of the studies. If we could manage to shorten the length of the studies, we would probably have more positive response from managers to provide VE Study team members. Another challenge is the misconception that VE is applied to save money. More work needs to be done to promote Value Engineering as a design tool that increases the value of the project rather than a tool to only reduce the cost of a project. Decisions based on cost savings. Some ODOT employees are not as willing to participate in Value Engineering. It has not become a part of their regular project program where it is a natural part of their schedule. Due to many competing interests and declining staffing levels, VE assignments/participation is a part time function. Lack of policy and lack of follow-up and measurement of effectiveness. The Department’s weakest aspect of the VE program is the limitation of in-house training. Due to the size of NHDOT’s program and focus of limited training funds, staff training remains a shortfall with the program. Just beginning.

121 PART 6 FUTURE NEEDS What aspects of your agency's VE program do you consider the weakest? Why?Question 42 Ref. Agency Category 54 BC CDN DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY 69 Fed Lands FHWA The statutory cost threshold of $1 million imposed by OMB is considered too low to justify the study investment. The threshold was established in 1993 and needs to be brought in line with current construction costs. Weaknesses include: Difficulty in getting at the real cost impact attributed to the VE (By the time we have the disposition of the VE recommendations, say 6 months to 1 year later, the project has changed considerably through the normal course of design. Estimating the impact is always very imprecise); inability to influence decision makers on certain projects (political decisions). Formal training. The tracking and confirmation of the number of projects, efficiencies and savings. We need to measure the performance of the VE program against established benchmarks. Looking at introduction. Comments

122 Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 6 CO US DOT 11 GA US DOT 12 HI US DOT 16 IA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 29 NV US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 33 NY US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 38 OR US DOT 39 PA US DOT 41 RI US DOT 42 SC US DOT 44 TN US DOT 47 VT US DOT 48 VA US DOT 49 WA US DOT 50 WV US DOT 51 WI US DOT 54 BC CDN DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY Staff are becoming excited about VE after having been involved in VE studies and seeing the positive results. 10 FL US DOT NYSDOT is exploring ways to expand our program to more actively pursue conducting VE studies on non-mandated projects. I think should be part of all project development. Few with the reduction of funding, larger and more complex projects will be reduced in number. Process Studies/Planning Studies: Perform more studies in these areas. Sharing Results: Sharing the study results with Department employees and design consultants. FHWA Support: The AASHTO VE Conference held in Tampa generated a renewed commitment from FHWA Florida Division. VA and VE will continue. VE is currently expanding into Project Scoping, Constructibility Reviews, standards, and non-construction VE. Training and developing new team leaders and members for future VE teams. Help department achieve most bang for the buck by providing alternatives for consideration. Simply to increase the quality of our work! So far this methodology has been used in construction projects, but we see its application to processes and products as a great opportunity. The VE program could expand and become a much larger and more important part of the project than it is now. Not certain I have been on detail in another area of the Dept. for the last year. Limited by size (cost) of project. VE could be an effective management tool for cost avoidance, reduction of contract time, minimization of r/w and/or environmental impacts, enhancement of safety and adding quality. As more VE studies are done, a greater rate of acceptance for alternate methods and products may develop. There are opportunities to better educate Project Managers on the benefits of a VE Study. Arizona is one of the fastest growing states requiring more infrastucture; thus there is more potential for VEs. To improve the weaknesses listed above. There are opportunities to work together and influence the State and Feds. It allows the contractor the opportunity to be innovative and share in the cost savings that he can identify. Over time most innovation becomes included in the overall contracts unless it was very site specific. It may be time to review our Value Engineering program. Continued use in engineering, construction and manual preparation. With improved and extended training of more technical staff, the VE program should be able to study more projects, not just those mandated. Formalizing it to include specifying a team, leader, and report format and context. Also when to use. Looking at introduction. Could do more studies on processes and agency products such as driver licensing and control, rather than just engineering. Could do more studies at the concept stage. Could do more studies with outside stakeholders. VE is a process that improves collaboration and understanding from different stakeholders. We should help other processes through VE such as Road Safety Audits, Context Sensitive Design, Decision Analysis, and project risk management. Question 43 PART 6 FUTURE NEEDS What opportunities exist for your agency's VE program? Why? Comments Combining project management tools and techniques with VA studies. We are now incorporating constructibilty studies which should include better communications with the project design team and the contractor. A lot! Much opportunity due to many projects awaiting funding. Potential savings and project improvements through VE program. Expanding the VE program to do VE studies on projects that do not meet the established criteria. With our newly reorganized Project Development, I hope to get the Regions to look at VE as a tool that will benefit their entire program. The value added to their projects and the cost savings to be used on additional projects. Future opportunities to complete a greater number of VE studies are just coming into view. With recent VE study successes on three very important projects, the important role of VE assessments is being realized. As a result, future support for VE studies can be expected within the agency. Since our program has been very minimal in the past, the opportunities for significant project improvements and cost savings are enormous. Can't think of any. Could be used to our advantage more in "building public trust", showing the public that the best value is being obtained.

123 Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 10 FL US DOT 11 GA US DOT 12 HI US DOT 16 IA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 24 MN US DOT 30 NH US DOT 31 NJ US DOT 32 NM US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 39 PA US DOT 41 RI US DOT 44 TN US DOT 46 UT US DOT 48 VA US DOT 50 WV US DOT 51 WI US DOT 52 WY US DOT 54 BC CDN DOT 56 NB CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 68 New York US CITY Reduced construction/design funding has reduced the number of projects available. Senior and middle management has changed since initiation of the program. None. Voluminous number of retirements causing rapid loss of knowledge base due to relative youth/age of engineers/tech's. Our projects are small and limited in scope. Lack of needed training and apathy by some of our technical staff. Funding for VE training. Question 44 None. Limited funding and cost of training. Organizational Structure: Department reorganization over the past 5 years has reassigned the VE position to report lower in the organization structure. VE needs champion. I will be retiring soon. When the Agency determines that the formal VE process has not provided significant benefit, it's use may be reduced. Hopefully, no threat exists.We currently have a $40.00/$1.00 ratio for value engineering studies. Resistance to change, especially after the environmental decision has been made. Too busy, Fed Regs being complied with. Continued support from senior management. As the number of VE studies increases, it becomes more difficult to get DOT team members. Design Project Managers are reluctant to request VE studies, and prefer not to implement the recommendations. The biggest threat is from other programs that are bringing in competing processes. For example, asset management has some alternative generation and evaluation processes. Asset Management is high profile and might eliminate the need for VE in the minds of managers. Other processes are very much in vogue and overlap or overshadow VE. These include Road Safety Audits (improve value), context sensitive design (improve aesthetics, collaborate with partners), IHSDM (generate designs), asset management (manage resources), ACTT workshops (Accelerated Construction Techniques Technology), (choosing by advantages (make decisions). The latest AASHTO VE guidelines does not give guidance on how to deal with explicit highway safety, yet highway safety is a huge priority with every agency. Is the VE community too insular from other agency priorities? The biggest threat is agency's are not considering explicit highway safety in their VE studies. The highway safety community believes with some justification that VE reduces highway safety. From a VE perspective, we don't report enough on results, we spend too much on consultants, we spend too much of the study on process rather than on the creative aspects. Looking at introduction. Changes in the Mayoral administration can result in a greater or lesser interest in supporting the VE program. PART 6 The VA program is very well established and respected in Caltrans. I don't see any immediate threats. No person with full time responsibility. Apathy. Comments Stagnant/shrinking state revenue could impact the state's transportataion budget in a negative manner. FUTURE NEEDS What threats exist for your agency's VE program? Why? None. 61 ON CDN DOT Contractors are submitting Value Engineering proposals that do not fit within the parameters of what a value engineering proposal is. This is time consuming for the contractor and does not allow for an efficient use of our time. Currently strong management support and successful program have minimized program threats. If the VE methodology is not well understood, it can disappoint management and therefore be discontinued for transportation projects under $25 million. Without the Federal VE Mandate requiring performance of VE studies the State Program would be greatly weakened. None at the moment. Pressure to complete projects means that projects under $25 million (unless they are very complex) do not always use VE.

124 Yes 7% No 78% Do not know 9% N/A 7% Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 5 CA US DOT 23 MI US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 49 WA US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT 67 Ottawa CDN CITY Limited VE Consultants in the Ottawa area at this time. FUTURE NEEDS Do you or your agency have any concerns over the preparedness of the value community to support your VE program? Comments There are many CVS's located in the Phoenix, Arizona area to assist ADOT's needs. More promotion! The right promotion! In our view, part of the problem is that the Value Engineering community has been recognized and remembered for its potential savings on construction projects or products. Savings or cost avoidance is simply very attractive, but we well know that this is a byproduct of Value Engineering. The main purpose is to increase the value of something, and so that by itself saves money. In fact, big money, particularly when life cycles and user costs are analyzed. It is not necessarily what it does immediately to a project, product or process, but the future benefits by building or implementing the “right stuff”. Consultants are usually only willing to do studies in accordance with SAVE procedures. They don't usually bring new things to the table or show much professional development. We still have consultants who only focus on cost savings, rather than improving value. Many consultants don't read papers or do professional development. If it worked 20 years ago it is fine by them. Most of the Module I courses we have bought contain dated material which shows that the consultant has little concern for continuous improvement. Most consultants are not thinking about how to support decision analysis through risk management, choosing by advantages, performance measurement, or some other techniques. AASHTO is also a valuable resource for information . Question 45 But I wish there were more trained in CVS - in MDOT and in Consultants. We carry out VA studies via consultant team leaders - not too many consultants understand our procedures. The VE teams has demonstrated a professional understanding of the process. Looking at Introduction. PART 6

125 Ref. Agency Category 3 AZ US DOT 10 FL US DOT 11 GA US DOT 17 KS US DOT 18 KY US DOT 19 LA US DOT 24 MN US DOT 26 MO US DOT 30 NH US DOT 32 NM US DOT 34 NC US DOT 36 OH US DOT 44 TN US DOT 46 UT US DOT 49 WA US DOT 61 ON CDN DOT 64 SK CDN DOT How effective are the States VE programs? Are they accomplishing the results intended by the OMB? Are the final designs being studied to find if recommendations are incorporated to comply with the Federal Mandate? Perfomance Measurements, shorter VE studies and training, the development of more and shorter VE workshops for executives, VE in design-build projects, VE in multi-modal transportation projects, more help from other VE organizations in promoting and performing short seminars for all (FHWA, SAVE International, the Miles Foundation, etc.). Only by understanding well the intent of the methodology as a design tool, is that the expectations of Value Engineering can be redirected. Research different means of performing VE such as "Improving the Value Method with Choosing by Advantages". This would be nice just to see if a new method may work better. Don't know. FUTURE NEEDS What research needs do you feel need to be addressed in the near future? Why?Question 46 PART 6 Need to look at state funded projects for value engineering. None that we can think of at this time. None at this time. Comments Performance Measures - traditionally cost savings has been the primary measure for VE programs and FDOT is no different, but how do you quantify the other benefits to VE? Quantifying safety. You can always enhance the value of a project by increasing safety; however, at what cost? How truthful are the reported cost savings on projects? Are the reported savings inflated to perpetuate VE? We have not experienced savings to the level reported by others. Research about what types of projects benefit from VE studies. The $25 million threshold should be reviewed. Looking at introduction. Need to research how to measure the effectiveness of VE against other processes used in project management. Need to research methods to incorporate user costs into the evaluation of alternatives. Need to research how to build explicit highway safety evaluation techniques into VE and integrate VE with road safety audits. Need to work on other processes that need techniques to generate alternatives such as context sensitive design. Need work on the decision analysis and VE, and VE and risk management. The U.K. is about 5 years ahead of North America in incorporating risk into VE studies. Performance measures. VE performance measures other than cost savings. Best practices, national trends on VE. For instance we're incorporating Caltrans methods on Project Performance measures and also trying to do more conceptual stage VEs. Research in evaluating the timing for VE studies within the design process for projects. When is the best time in the design phase to undertake a costly VE study (i.e., prior to NEPA approval, early in final design or late in final design)? NHDOT has focused the VE study to be completed at the conclusion of the NEPA/Section 4F/Section 6F/Section 404 approvals prior to extensive final design efforts. Understanding the timing of VE studies and the reasons why it is being undertaken during certain design phase by State highway agencies would be useful in insuring continuity in the overall process from State to State.

Next: Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications »
Value Engineering Applications in Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 352: Value Engineering Applications in Transportation examines the current value engineering (VE) practices of highway transportation agencies in the United States and Canada. Value engineering (VE) is the systematic review of a project, product, or process to improve performance, quality, and/or life-cycle cost by an independent multidisciplinary team of specialists. The report identifies the reported best practices, key strengths, and challenges of current VE study processes and agency programs, and offers guidance on applying and improving the effectiveness of VE in projects and programs.

NCHRP Synthesis 352 was published on December 8, 2005. An incorrect version of Figure 14 was included on page 33. This has been corrected in the on-line version of the report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!