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.
1 Price adjustments of selected commodities in highway construction are used in construction contracting as a way of limiting risks to the contractor arising from price fluctuations of these commodities over the life of a contract. Fuel usage factors are commonly applied by state and local agencies in calculating fuel cost price adjustments in a contract specification that permits cost escalation and de-escalation. The current federal factors, originally developed for Highway Research Board (HRB) Highway Research Circular Number 158 in 1974, are presented in the 1980 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Technical Advisory T5080.3. The advisory contains fuel usage factors, in gasoline and diesel, for a number of heavy construction activities, including excavation, aggregates, hot mix asphalt production and hauling, and Portland cement concrete production and hauling. HRB Circular 158 established fuel usage factors for structures and miscellaneous construction in gallons per $1,000 of construction cost, with no provision for any adjustment for inflation. NCHRP Project 10-81 is the first research effort to revisit these factors on the federal level and attempts to account for more than 30 years of inflation, commodity cost increases, and changes in construction practices. The objectives of this research were to (1) identify present highway construction contract activities that are major consumers of fuel; (2) prepare fuel usage factors for these activities, including those items of work presented in Attachment 1 of FHWA Technical Advisory T5080.3, for base year 2012; and (3) develop a recommended practice for state DOTs to implement use of fuel adjustment factors and adjust them for both state-specific conditions and changes in construction costs, methods, and equipment. The study team employed a three-pronged research methodology to examine this issue and develop updated fuel usage factors. The primary methodology was a nationwide survey of highway construction contractors using a variety of survey tools. The second methodology was an engineering estimation of fuel usage per unit for numerous highway construction work items, which was undertaken by a team of veteran construction estimators. The third methodology was a statistical analysis of the Oman Systems BidTabs Database to determine if historical bid prices of construction pay items can be modeled and correlated to historical fuel prices. The three methodologies complemented each other, provided a level of redundancy in the research effort, and resulted in a positive project outcome. The Original Fuel Factors Documents The original research on fuel usage factors includes Highway Research Circular 158 by the Highway Research Board (now the Transportation Research Board) in July 1974. A mailed survey of 3,000 highway contractors netted 400 responses, and the FHWA compiled and analyzed the data. Factors were computed for construction activities such as excavation, S u m m a r y Fuel Usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction
2 Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction aggregate and asphalt production, and structure construction. Each of these activities received a high, low, and average factor. Both diesel and gasoline were included. The FHWA incorporated Circular 158 factors in Technical Advisory T5080.3, originally released in 1980. The FHWA website provides the updated version of this advisory. It contains methods for developing price adjustment provisions such as downward and upward contract provisions, using an average of quotes to avoid manipulation, triggers based on a 5 percent change in fuel price indices, and ad hoc adjustments on fuel usage factors in cases of extreme elevation, rough terrain, etc. It also provides the original fuel usage factors as well as additional fuel usage factors developed by the states. The Contract Administration Section of AASHTOâs Highway Subcommittee on Construc- tion (AASHTO SOC) maintains a spreadsheet that summarizes the current use of price adjustment clauses for fuel, asphalt, cement, steel, and other highway materials. The 2009 version of a summary spreadsheet includes general information regarding trigger values, indices, Web references, general comments, and state DOT contacts. This set of literature also includes the individual state policies for which the spreadsheet provides Web references. Methodology Development Phase NCHRP Project 10-81 is divided into three major phases. The first phase proceeded as an initial methodology development phase. The goals for this phase were to ascertain the data needs and perceptions of state DOTs and contractors as well as to determine the fuel intensity of highway construction tasks. These goals were accomplished using three methodologies: state DOT and contractor surveys of needs and perceptions, an initial engineering analysis of fuel intensity, and a statistical analysis of fuel intensity. State DOT Survey of Needs and Perceptions The study team conducted a nationwide survey of state DOTs. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain the current implementation of fuel usage factors, the statesâ satisfaction with their current programs, and their perceptions on how to upgrade them. The survey, provided in a user friendly SurveyMonkey format, received responses from all 50 state DOTs. The use of fuel factors in bridge/structure contracting is common, but several flaws act as a hindrance to their effectiveness. Fuel factors for bridges/structures were present in 20 states, 40 percent of the total surveyed. When asked to divulge perceived flaws in bridge/structure fuel factors, 28 out of 37 states responded with at least one criticism. Changes in construction methods and fuel intensity and differences in structure type, size, and complexity were perceived as the largest flaws, receiving 12 selections each. Respondents had similar perceptions of the activities that were most fuel intensive. Asphalt paving and grading/excavation were the decisive top choices when ranking construction activities by fuel intensity, sharing all 48 first-place rankings between them. Respondents had mixed opinions on whether they desired fuel factors for a broader spectrum of items. A total of 33 out of 47 states believe it is unnecessary to include fuel factors for additional pay items due to limited fuel use. Administrative burden was cited by 16 states as justification for limiting the number of fuel factors. State DOTs had definite, although sometimes conflicting, ideas on the form fuel factors should take and how often they should be updated. The ability to convert units of measure in the new system received support from 26 states, while the inclusion of high-medium-low
Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction 3 factor ranges would be useful for 16 states. Urban/rural and hauling distance were the most popular options when selecting additional variables for the system, receiving 20 and 19 selections respectively, although 16 states would not want any additional variables. Seventy percent of states would like the system to be configured at the state (23) or regional (12) level. A majority of 34 states would like the factors to be updated every 5 years or less. State DOTs shared a high level of interest in new research on fuel factors. For example, almost two-thirds of those responding (30 out of 46) would begin a fuel factor program or implement changes to their fuel factor adjustments if presented with revised factors and a software tool. Only 12 states with fuel factor programs would retain their existing methods, while five states that do not implement fuel factors would continue to refrain from utilizing them. Several states said they would evaluate the delivered products and consult with the contracting industry before moving forward. Initial Contractor Survey of Needs and Perceptions The study team also conducted a nationwide survey of contractors. Designed as a precursor to the more detailed Contractor Fuel Usage Survey, this survey explored the basic components of the fuel usage experiences and methodologies of construction firms. An additional goal was to determine methods to maximize the visibility and effectiveness of the later survey. Nearly 80 percent of the responding contractors operate primarily in states that use fuel factors. A sizable majority (39 out of 46) of responding contractors have updated their fuel consumption rates or factors within the last 3 years, while less than one-third of state DOTs have done the same. Individual contractors would seem to have an incentive to update this information regularly as a means of increasing bid accuracy and eliminat- ing uncertainty. The results for the contractor survey illustrate several trends that may be ameliorated by updated fuel usage factors. Contractors update their fuel consumption rates or factors more often than do state DOTs. Fluctuations in commodity pricing have a larger effect on contractors than DOTs, primarily due to smaller operating budgets. Contractors would then have an incentive to update and maintain factors. While 60 percent of the responding con- tractors expressed satisfaction with the accuracy of their primary stateâs fuel factors, nearly 40 percent found them to be somewhat inaccurate at best. Inaccuracies can be compounded if a contractorâs estimating tool cannot calculate the amount of fuel used on a project, which nearly 40 percent of respondents indicated. Initial Identification of High Fuel Use Pay Items In addition to collecting state DOT and contractor perceptions on fuel intensity, the study methodology included two other methods designed to investigate fuel intensity. As part of the study teamâs three-pronged approach to addressing the research problem, the project team conducted an initial investigation to identify construction pay items that had high fuel intensity. An expert panel of professional estimators and contractors rated the fuel use of over 1,000 specific pay items. The ratings of individual estimators were averaged to create a composite ranking of fuel use. Reviewer D is a member of the research team and Reviewers A through C performed as consultants for the research team. Each member of the panel possesses at least 25 years of experience in the highway construction and/or cost estimation fields.
4 Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction The initial engineering analysis consisted of the following three parts: ⢠Creating a list of pay items to study by filtering unsuitable pay items, ⢠Creating a ranking system to apply to the pay items, and ⢠Performing the fuel use ranking of each pay item and pay item category. Historically, the most common categories of pay items used for fuel use factors are grading, asphalt, base stone, and concrete pavement. All four of these categories ranked high in both the summary and detailed analysis. Several items were later excluded due to being bid in small quantities or because of the inclusion of lump sum pay items. Initial Statistical Analysis of Fuel Prices and Bid Prices In the initial statistical analysis, the objective was to examine which pay item prices are sensitive to changes in fuel prices in order to develop a list of items for which to develop fuel use factors. The thesis was that if there is no association between fuel prices and pay item prices, it would not be necessary to provide a price adjustment clause for those pay items. The initial statistical analysis consisted of three steps. The first step was to tabulate unit prices for pay items over time. The second step was to develop price indices for fuel. The third step was to conduct an initial statistical analysis using pay item level bid data from the Oman Systems BidTabs Database for 48 states. The overall conclusion of the initial statistical analysis is that there is a positive relationship between fuel prices and bid prices. The positive relationship is strongest where the significance of the correlation is strongest. However, there is a large amount of variation in the results for individual pay items within the categories of construction. The negative coefficients indicate the fuel price is not always an important factor for determining bid prices for many types of purchases. It may be concluded that fuel consumption is significant in most types of highway construction, but perhaps is not limited to only certain construction activities, as previous studies have suggested. A major goal of the initial analysis was to identify construction tasks that consume large amounts of fuel and are fuel intensive. These items would be obvious candidates for newly calculated fuel factors. The initial statistical analysis indicated that a larger number of activi- ties than previously envisioned are heavy users of fuel and/or are fuel intensive. Many heavy construction tasks, such as asphalt paving and grading, were confirmed as being heavy users of fuel. However, additional items appear to be more fuel intensive than anticipated. For example, the roadway lighting/electrical and signalization categories ranked second and third in the initial statistical analysis. Those categories did not rank within the top ten of the other initial methodologies. Data Collection Phase: Final Methodology Following the initial phase was the data collection phase. The data collection phase utilized the three project methodologies to directly estimate fuel consumption. The survey approach provided much of the data used in formulating the new factors. The engineering approach confirmed the survey data and provided additional detail when the survey approach did not garner sufficient observations for particular work items. Final Contractor Fuel Usage Survey The first effort of the data collection phase was the Contractor Fuel Usage Survey. This effort aided in the identification of heavy fuel use activities and allowed the project team
Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction 5 to establish current levels of fuel use across a variety of construction activities and project conditions. The project team utilized several surveys, including an Excel spreadsheet tool and several industry-segment-specific SurveyMonkey surveys, to elicit contractor responses. To maximize contractor participation, the project team received cooperation from several industry organizations, including the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (NAPA), the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), and the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA). In total, respondents provided over 500 fuel consumption observations for over 40 dif- ferent activities. As stipulated in the outreach efforts to highway construction contractors and organizations, this report provides results as an average of the valid responses for each activity and does not provide information reported by individual respondents. The fuel consumption estimates represent the simple mean (average) of all of the responses that met two criteria. The first criterion was that the respondent provided the estimate in either the default unit suggested in the survey or an alternative unit that the project team could convert to the base unit with a conversion factor. For example, for most activities, a subset of respondents reported results in terms of gallons consumed per hour. Conversion of these estimates to gallons per unit of work was not possible without assuming a production rate. The second criterion was that each individual response included in the estimate had to be within a range that the engineering staff judged to be reasonable. In some instances, respondents provided estimates that varied from the majority of estimates by a factor of 10 or more. For example, one respondent provided fuel consumption per unit estimates for the six types of milling that ranged from 8.8 to 9.5 times greater than the mean estimate for all of the respondents. In each case, this respondentâs estimate was at least 6.6 times higher than any other estimate. These out-of-range estimates were not included in the calculation of mean values. The number of observations was sufficient to constitute a valid sample for most work items. With the exception of several outlying responses that would have skewed the calculated averages, the fuel usage estimates provided by the contracting community were within a reasonable range of accuracy as determined by the research teamâs engineering experts. Results within categories demonstrated consistency as well. The survey results provided utility throughout the remainder of the project, especially as a means to complement and verify the engineering results. Final Engineering Analysis of Fuel Usage Building on the results from the initial engineering analysis, which aimed to identify high fuel use activities, the project team extended the analysis to calculate the fuel use per unit for each work task. Using the initial phase calculations as well as estimated quantities of work for a typical project, the project team was able to estimate a fuel usage factor for each work task. As in the initial engineering analysis, the study team utilized an expert panel of four construction engineers and estimators. Each panel member employed their industry expertise to compile a list of construction activities, assign equipment and crews to work tasks, and calculate production rates. Panel Members A, B, and C each independently calculated fuel use per unit for each work task. Panel Member D acted as a mediator during this effort and investigated discrepancies, resolved differences in calculations, and compiled the results. The fuel use calculations, arrived at through a consensus-building process among the expert engineering panel, provide accurate average fuel use specifications for a variety of work tasks prevalent in the highway construction industry. Although any given estimator
6 Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction might choose approaches and equipment that differ slightly from those presented, the fuel use calculations provided represent realistic baseline numbers for a detailed set of average work tasks. Final Statistical Analysis of Fuel Usage The objective of the BidTabs statistical analysis was to estimate the fuel usage of con- struction activities using a statistical model that incorporates changing fuel prices and bid prices. This included specification of the model, testing of different combinations and forms of the variables, exploration of lagged variables, evaluation of residuals and error terms, and exploration of different combinations of pay items both within and across states. The original methodology envisioned that the database would contain prices over 3 to 5 years. The study team selected a start date of 1/1/2006 and an end date of 12/31/2010, resulting in 3 additional months of data and a full 5-year data set. In total, 363,137 separate pay items are available in the Oman Systems BidTabs Database. For these pay items, there were more than 4.1 million low bids. Note that low bids are the unit price bid for the item in the winning low bid as opposed to the lowest bid for that item. The regression results produced by the analysis demonstrated some degree of consistency. The fuel required for a ton of asphalt is a factor of approximately 10 higher than for a ton of base stone. The fuel required for asphalt per square yard is slightly smaller than the fuel required for the pay item grouping of bridges per square yard (mainly organic surface coatings). Drainage pipe has a higher fuel requirement per linear foot than fencing, which in turn has a higher requirement than erosion control. Guard rails require only slightly more fuel input per linear foot than roadway lighting/electrical. On the other hand, however, several of the estimates generated by this analysis clearly do not appear to represent actual fuel usage. For example, the statistical estimate of fuel usage for grading on a cubic yard basis differs from the engineering and contractor survey estimates by a large factor of magnitude. Despite the high level of aggregation, the number of states is small for many pay item groups. For example, seven pay items rely on data for only one state, while 15 more rely on data from only two or three states. State-defined pay items are at a finer level of detail than the pay item groups used for this study. As a result, the estimates for these groupings are not as robust as those for pay items that are common to many states. The statistical analysis demonstrated that most highway construction activities consume large amounts of fuel and are fuel intensive. However, the approach does not appear to have generated estimates of fuel usage that would be accurate enough to contribute to the development of the final fuel usage factors. In developing these fuel factors, the results of the statistical analysis were considered where it was felt that they might be useful. Comparison of Fuel Usage Estimates and Fuel Factor Development Phase The final project phase consisted of comparing the fuel usage data gathered during the previous phase, modifying select items based on the knowledge of the expert engineering panel, and developing a final fuel usage factor for construction work tasks. This phase also examined the alternative uses for the final fuel usage factors.
Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction 7 Data Comparison and Fuel Usage Factor Development In developing the final fuel usage estimates by pay item, the study compares the information available in the existing literature with the fuel usage data developed using the three project methodologies. These sources are as follows. 1. Technical Advisory T5080.3. This technical advisory presents the fuel factors calculated in the original effort during the Nixon era. These factors are still used by a large number of contractors and state DOTs. 2. Contractor Survey. The Contractor Fuel Usage Survey represents a cooperative effort by the NCHRP, study team, and industry organizations to engage the highway construction contracting community. The objective of this effort was to ascertain fuel use information from contractors representing a broad sample of regions, firm sizes, project locations, and work activities. Utilizing an Excel spreadsheet tool and several iterations of a SurveyMonkey survey, this effort resulted in over 500 data observations. 3. Engineering Analysis. For this methodology, the study steam convened an expert panel of veteran construction engineers and estimators. The engineering team first collaborated to rank construction activities by fuel use intensity and recommend items that should be further analyzed. In later efforts, the engineering team then calculated the fuel use for these activities under average project parameters. This was done by calculating the equipment needed for each activity, the fuel consumed by this equipment, production rates, and the average length of time expected to complete each project. The result is a calculation for each work activity that expresses the gallons of fuel consumed per a unit of measure, such as the number of gallons of diesel fuel consumed for each linear foot of sewer pipe. 4. BidTabs Statistical Analysis. This experimental methodology attempted to track the relationship between fuel prices and bid estimates. Unlike other elements of a typical construction bid, commodity prices (including fuel) exhibit historical fluctuations due to market variables. This methodology attempted to isolate fuel prices, coalesce them to historical BidTabs data as maintained in the Oman Systems database, and observe any correlations. For this effort, the research team compared data across the three study methodologies and the original fuel factors as presented in Technical Advisory T5080.3. Where the research had enough data to make a valid comparison, there was substantial agreement between the sources regarding activity fuel use. In particular, the survey data validated the engineering estimates. Where there was disagreement among the data sources, the engineering estimates were reassessed and generally revised to reflect the figures garnered from the survey effort. Other Potential Uses and Applications for Project Data The research team explored other potential applications of the fuel usage data. The primary intended audience or âmarketâ for the products of this study will be the state DOTs and, in particular, the contracting authorities that request bids for highway construction or maintenance. However, this guidance will also be useful for a variety of other entities and uses. The research team undertook a variety of activities in order to explore these other poten- tial activities. First, the team queried selected state DOT representatives to ascertain whether they envisioned additional uses for the fuel factor data. Second, the team reached out to the members of the NCHRP project panel for their input and assistance. In both instances, the inquiries polled respondents on their impressions as to the usefulness of the data to potential users. Finally, the team reviewed pertinent literature collected throughout the study for information on potential additional audiences.
8 Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction The research revealed six major additional markets for the results of this study. These include ⢠Other agencies responsible for highway contracting; ⢠Agencies responsible for construction of facilities for other transportation modes; ⢠Associations representing industries that build highways or provide goods to highway builders; ⢠Officials interested in improving planning and budgeting; ⢠Contractors interested in better understanding and managing their fuel use or in preparing more accurate cost estimates; and ⢠Researchers examining energy requirements, emissions, and climate change. A range of potential uses exists for the fuel factors data collected in this study. The data can be used by entities other than state DOTs for both highway contracting and construction of facilities for other transportation modes. Associations may value the data for dissemination of information and policy guidance for their members. Officials interested in improving planning and budgeting may find information on fuel use in their projects extremely useful. At the same time, contractors interested in better understanding and managing their fuel use or in preparing more accurate cost estimates will find value in the fuel factors. Finally, researchers examining energy requirements, emissions, and climate change, can use the data in preparing estimates, inventories, and action plans. Appendices and Other Research Products Several project efforts are included as appendices for this report. These efforts, which are briefly described below, include the Recommended Practice and Model Specification and the Outreach and Dissemination Plan. Recommended Practice and Model Specification One of the major research products of this project is Appendix A, Recommended Practice and Model Specification. The Recommended Practice and Model Specification document contains a table that displays the revised fuel usage factors and also explains the procedures for development and use of fuel price adjustment contract provisions. Exhibit S-1 contains the project work tasks, original fuel usage factors (when available), revised and new fuel usage factors, and units of measurement. The Recommended Practice and Model Specifica- tion also presents information on criteria for application of the fuel usage factors, sample wording successfully used in specifications by various states, and example calculations and worksheets. The document contains two payment adjustment clauses. The first model speci- fication is designed to be used by states that calculate price adjustments through the use of a price index. The second model specification is designed to be used by states that perform price adjustments with the actual fuel prices. Each of the specifications contains the following sections and elements: ⢠The source for historical commodity prices (entered by user), ⢠The positive and negative trigger values that trigger a price adjustment (entered by user), ⢠The letting date and base commodity prices (entered by user), ⢠The relevant fuel factors (entered by user), ⢠The price adjustment calculation formula, ⢠Definitions for formula inputs, and ⢠Sample calculations.
Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction 9 Category Item of Work Units FUF 1980 FUF Clearing and Removal Clearing Gallons/Acre 191.200 200.000 Pipe Removal Gallons/L.F. 0.863 Pavement Removal - Asphalt Gallons/C.Y. 1.397 Pavement Removal - Concrete Gallons/C.Y. 0.562 Structure Demolition (House/Building) Gallons/Each 375.000 Structure Demolition (Bridge per S.F. of Deck) Gallons/S.F. 0.626 Excavation Excavation - Earth - Off Road - Long Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.320 0.440 Excavation - Earth - Off Road - Short Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.263 Excavation - Earth - On Road - Long Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.687 Excavation - Earth - On Road - Short Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.319 Excavation - Rock - Off Road - Long Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.402 0.570 Excavation - Rock - Off Road - Short Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.311 Excavation - Rock - On Road - Long Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.740 Excavation - Rock - On Road - Short Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.465 Strip Topsoil Gallons/C.Y. 0.167 Roadway Finishing Gallons/S.Y. 0.073 Base Stone Base Stone - Short Haul (Haul and Place) Gallons/Ton 0.406 0.510 Base Stone - Long Haul (Haul and Place) Gallons/Ton 0.558 0.810 Asphalt Asphalt Production (Diesel) Gallons/Ton 2.040 2.570 Asphalt Production (Natural Gas) Gallons (GGE)/Ton 2.144 Asphalt Production (Natural Gas) (Support Equipment) Gallons/Ton 0.090 Warm Mix Asphalt Production (Diesel) Gallons/Ton 1.632 Warm Mix Asphalt Production (Natural Gas) Gallons (GGE)/Ton 1.715 Warm Mix Asphalt Production (Natural Gas) (Support Eqp.) Gallons/Ton 0.072 Asphalt Hauling (0-5 miles) Gallons/Ton 0.183 0.770 Asphalt Hauling (6-15 miles) Gallons/Ton 0.293 Asphalt Hauling (>15 miles) Gallons/Ton 0.514 1.070 Asphalt Placement Gallons/Ton 0.273 0.280 Milling Milling - 0-1" (0-5 mile haul) Gallons/Ton 0.028 Milling - 0-1" (6-15 mile haul) Gallons/Ton 0.030 Milling - 0-1" (>15 mile haul) Gallons/Ton 0.038 Milling - 2-4" (0-5 mile haul) Gallons/Ton 0.062 Milling - 2-4" (6-15 mile haul) Gallons/Ton 0.071 Milling - 2-4" (>15 mile haul) Gallons/Ton 0.090 Structures Reinforcing Steel Gallons/Lbs. 0.004 Steel Beams Gallons/L.F. 0.180 Substructure Concrete Gallons/C.Y. 4.700 Superstructure Concrete Gallons/C.Y. 4.150 Bridges Gallons/Contract $ 5.200 41.000 Bridges (per S.F. of deck) Gallons/S.F. 0.616 Misc. Concrete Concrete Production (Support Equipment) Gallons/C.Y. 0.090 0.430 Concrete Hauling - Short Haul Gallons/C.Y. 0.600 1.000 Concrete Hauling - Long Haul Gallons/C.Y. 1.100 1.000 Concrete Placement Gallons/C.Y. 0.267 0.470 Concrete Curb/Gutter Gallons/L.F. 0.152 Concrete Sidewalk Gallons/S.F. 0.090 Retaining Wall (Cast in Place) Gallons/S.F. 0.646 Noise Wall (Pre-Cast) Gallons/S.F. 0.304 Concrete Median Barrier Gallons/L.F. 0.309 0.300 Drainage Pipe and Structures Large Pipe Crew Gallons/L.F. 4.338 Medium Pipe Crew Gallons/L.F. 1.481 Small Pipe Crew Gallons/L.F. 0.871 Drainage Structures Gallons/Each 26.175 Specialty Items Fence Gates Gallons/Each 4.200 Fencing Gallons/L.F. 0.043 Grassing (Hydro Seeding) Gallons/Acre 3.497 Grassing (Seedbed Preparation) Gallons/Acre 10.000 Sodding Gallons/S.Y. 0.017 Guardrail Posts Gallons/Each 0.042 Guardrail - Steel Gallons/L.F. 0.037 0.230 Guardrail - Wire/Cable Gallons/L.F. 0.105 Intersection Signalization (2 Lane) Gallons/Each 170.000 Intersection Signalization (4 Lane) Gallons/Each 304.000 Pavement Marking Gallons/L.M. 4.500 Exhibit S-1. Fuel usage factor summary table.
10 Fuel usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction Project Outreach Plan Another product of this research effort is the outreach and dissemination plan to publi- cize the results of NCHRP Project 10-81. This project includes a variety of products that will be useful in educating and assisting the highway construction community in the adoption of revised and updated fuel usage factors. The outreach plan details a strategy to best inform the potential users of this information, including its existence, potential benefits, and ease of use. The products of this effort include the following: ⢠A list of action items; ⢠A list of stakeholders to contact; ⢠A draft PowerPoint presentation for briefing agency executives on key products and recommendations; ⢠A plan for a webinar including a draft agenda, potential survey questions, and presentation materials; and ⢠A plan to further inform the highway construction community through presentation of the research and results at annual meetings, conferences, and workshops.
