National Academies Press: OpenBook

Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection (2017)

Chapter: APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results

« Previous: REFERENCES
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24674.
×
Page 77

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.

60 APPENDIX A Department of Transportation Survey and Results NCHRP 47-02 Synthesis Alternate Design/Alternate Bid (ADAB) Process for Pavement-Type Selection Survey Questions Please enter the date (MM/DD/YYYY). Please enter your contact information. Name: ___________________________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________________ State: ____________________________________________________________ Phone Number: ____________________________________________________ E-mail Address: ___________________________________________________ 1) Does your agency use ADAB in contract award processes for pavement construction contracts? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2) Is your state agency interested in adopting ADAB procedures in the future? ( ) Yes ( ) No 3) Please select reasons for interest in ADAB: [ ] Increased competition [ ] Flexibility in design, construction, and bidding [ ] Cost savings [ ] Quality and performance improvements [ ] Accelerated project completion [ ] Better or increased use of local material sources [ ] Other, please describe: 4) Please select reasons for not considering ADAB: [ ] Statutory constraints [ ] Industry resistance [ ] Lack of projects that would qualify for ADAB [ ] Lack of resources [ ] Insufficient experience with the process [ ] Internal resistance to change [ ] Other, please describe: 5) Would your current pavement-type selection process benefit from ADAB use? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Unsure 6) Do you have a defined process that identifies potential projects for ADAB, or any specifications and policies for ADAB practices? ( ) Yes ( ) No

61 7) Please upload any documents or guidelines explaining your ADAB process: 8) How long has the current ADAB type selection procedure been in use? Please enter the number of years: 9) Is ADAB an integral part of the pavement-type selection process for your agency? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Unsure 10) For all pavement projects, approximately, what is the percent breakdown between concrete paving compared to asphalt paving in lane miles? % Concrete: % Asphalt: 11) In an average year, approximately, how many pavement projects are bid using ADAB by your agency? Design-Bid-Build: None 1–5 6–15 16–30 >30 Design-Build: None 1–5 6–15 16–30 >30 12) For ADAB projects, what project delivery method is generally used? Please indicate the number of ADAB projects for each project delivery method. Design-Bid-Build: Design-Build: Design-Bid-Build-Maintain or Operate: Public Private Partnership: Long-Term Warranty: Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM-at-Risk): 13) Are ADAB pavement projects accompanied by any special contract provisions? Please check all that apply. [ ] Performance specifications [ ] Special provisions, please specify: [ ] Unsure [ ] Other, please describe: [ ] None 14) In your opinion, what factors listed below have contributed to the implementation and/or advancement of your ADAB program? Select all that apply. [ ] Agency support and leadership [ ] State award legislation [ ] Industry support [ ] State resources provided for implementation [ ] Other, please describe: 15) How do your local competitive bidding statutes impact the use of ADAB by your agency? ( ) No impact, we are able to utilize ADAB without restriction ( ) Minimal impact, we are able to utilize ADAB on selected types of projects ( ) Some impact, we are only able to award a specific number of ADAB contracts each year ( ) Major impact, it is extremely challenging to award ADAB contracts ( ) Unsure 16) Have you had a protest of an award for an ADAB contract? ( ) Yes, please describe the basis and outcome of this protest: ( ) No ( ) Unsure 17) Please rate the below statements based on your experience using the following scale. Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree; Unsure ADAB increases competition in project bids. ADAB provides flexibility in design, construction, and bidding. ADAB provides cost savings to the agency.

62 ADAB introduces alternatives that contribute to the overall performance of the pavement. ADAB results in accelerated project completion. ADAB projects provide comparable pavement design alternatives for the contractor. 18) In your experience, what characteristics of pavement projects tend to be good indicators of their suitability for ADAB award practices? (Assume pavement-type selection is undecided.) Not suitable for ADAB use; No influence on ADAB use; Suitable for ADAB use Projects with high levels of traffic Projects with higher percentage of truck traffic Issues with vertical geometry or clearance Issues with the continuity of adjacent pavement/lanes Issues with availability of local materials and expertise Issues with unstable subsoils Work zone issues, including traffic control and safety concerns Low tolerance for pavement noise 19) In your experience, how often do the following project characteristics become a critical factor when choosing among competing design alternatives? Rarely; Occasionally; Frequently; Not a factor Suitability for functional class Traffic level and composition Complexity of highway geometry or clearance Issues with the continuity of adjacent pavement/lanes Issues with availability of local materials and expertise Complexity due to unstable soils Work zone issues, including traffic control and safety concerns Low tolerance for pavement noise Proximity to areas with high percentage of heavy trucks; e.g., port facilities, energy development activity areas 20) ADAB is typically used when there is no clear winner among competing design alternatives. For your agency, what triggers the use of the ADAB award process for pavement projects where there is no clear preferred design alterna- tive (e.g., when there is 10% difference between the present value of pavement alternatives that use the same analysis period)? ( ) Based on deterministic life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), a threshold of: ( ) Based on probabilistic/stochastic life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), a threshold of: ( ) Other, please describe: ( ) Unsure 21) If your agency uses a bid adjustment factor to compare alternative designs, what does it use? ( ) An LCCA-based adjustment factor; please describe: ( ) Other, please describe: ( ) We don’t use an adjustment factor 22) Does your agency’s bid adjustment factor include user costs? ( ) Yes, please specify which user costs are included: ( ) No ( ) Unsure

63 23) How are user costs accounted for in the ADAB process? ( ) Added to agency costs ( ) Kept separate from agency costs ( ) User costs are not accounted for ( ) Other, please specify: ( ) Unsure 24) Which flexible pavement design methodology is currently used in your agency? ( ) AASHTO 1972 ( ) AASHTO 1993 ( ) AASHTO MEPDG ( ) State-developed methodology ( ) Asphalt Institute Method ( ) Other, please briefly discuss any combination of the above: 25) Which rigid pavement design methodology is currently used in your agency? ( ) AASHTO 1972 ( ) AASHTO 1993 ( ) AASHTO MEPDG ( ) State-developed methodology ( ) Portland Cement Association Method ( ) Other, please briefly discuss any combination of the above: 26) Will the typical pavement design methodology be changed to ensure equivalent pavement design alternatives (e.g., replacing AASHTO 1993 use with AASHTO MEPDG, or changing parameters such as design life for comparison purposes)? ( ) Yes, please explain: ( ) No ( ) Not applicable 27) Do you use a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) methodology for pavement-type selection? ( ) Yes ( ) No, please describe any methods used for pavement-type selection: ( ) Unsure 28) Do you use a deterministic or probabilistic LCCA methodology? ( ) Deterministic ( ) Probabilistic ( ) Unsure 29) Is there a documented process for your LCCA or any other pavement-type selection methodology? ( ) Yes ( ) No documented process ( ) Unsure 30) Please provide a link or upload documents/process manuals explaining your LCCA or any other pavement-type selec- tion methodology: ( ) URL link: ( ) Upload file(s) ( ) Already uploaded with ADAB process documents 31) Please provide a link explaining your LCCA or any other pavement-type selection methodology: 32) When LCCA is used, what economic analysis method is used in comparing alternatives? ( ) Net Present Value (NPV) analysis ( ) Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) analysis ( ) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) analysis ( ) Unsure ( ) Other, please describe: 33) Does your LCCA analysis period include a major rehabilitation? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Unsure 34) Are user costs considered in the life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA)? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Unsure ( ) Not applicable 35) What is the source for the discount rate you use? ( ) US Government Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Circular A-94 ( ) State statutory requirement ( ) Rate of FHWA recommendation ( ) Other, please specify:

64 36) What is the most current discount rate (%) used for your LCCA? 37) What LCCA analysis packages or programs are used? ( ) State-developed software (spreadsheet) ( ) FHWA’s probabilistic LCCA program (RealCost®) ( ) State-customized version of RealCost® ( ) Propriety/pavement industry software ( ) Other, please specify: ( ) Unsure 38) Please provide any comments or questions you may have about ADAB contracting: 39) Would you be willing to participate in an interview to collect a case study of your agency’s ADAB process? ( ) Yes, please contact me by phone ( ) Yes, please contact me by e-mail ( ) No SURVEY RESPONSE DATA TABLES Tables A1–A7 relate to agencies where ADAB is used TABLE A1 AGENCY CHARACTERISTICS AND ADAB State Defined ADAB Process, Specifications, and Policies ADAB Experience (years) ADAB and PTS Integration Percent Concrete Lane Miles Percent Asphalt Lane Miles Avg. No. of DBB Projects per Year Avg. No. of DB Projects per Year Performance Specifications Used in ADAB Contracts Protest History in ADAB Contracts Alabama N 4 N 5% 95% 1–5 None Y N Arkansas N 25 N 3% 97% 1–5 None — U Colorado Y 7 Y 5% 95% 1–5 1–5 — N Florida Y 10 N 3% 97% >30 16–30 — N Idaho N — N — — — — — — Kentucky Y 10 Y 1% 99% 1–5 None — N Maryland Y 2 Y 1% 99% None 6–15 Y N Michigan Y 15 Y — — 1–5 1–5 Y Y Minnesota Y 8 Y 10% 90% 6–15 1–5 — N Missouri Y 12 Y 15% 85% >30 6–15 Y N Nevada N 2 N 4% 96% 1–5 None — N New Mexico Y 1 Y 5% 95% 1–5 None — U North Carolina N 1.5 U 10% 90% None 1–5 — N Ohio Y 6 Y 5% 95% 16–30 6–15 — Y Virginia Y 5 Y 15% 85% 1–5 None — U West Virginia Y 9 Y — — 1–5 None — N Note: N = no; U = unsure; Y = yes.

65 TABLE A2 LEADING ADAB BENEFITS, AND REASONS GIVEN THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF ADAB PRACTICES Factors for ADAB Success Leading ADAB Benefits State Agency Support and Leadership State Award Legislation Industry Support State Resources Provided for Implementation ADAB Increases Competition in Project Bids ADAB Provides Flexibility in Design, Construction, and Bidding ADAB Provides Cost Savings to the Agency ADAB Introduces Alternatives That Contribute to the Overall Performance of the Pavement ADAB Results in Accelerated Project Completion ADAB Projects Provide Comparable Pavement Design Alternatives for the Contractor Alabama Y — Y — Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Arkansas Y — Y — Agree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Agree Colorado Y — Y Y Agree Agree Neutral Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Florida — — — — Neutral Agree Agree Agree Neutral Agree Idaho — — — — — — — — — — Kentucky Y — — — Agree Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Maryland Y — — — Agree Agree Unsure Neutral Unsure Agree Michigan Y — — — Neutral Neutral Disagree Neutral Disagree Agree Minnesota Y — — — Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Missouri Y — Y — Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Neutral Strongly Agree Nevada — — — Neutral Neutral Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree New Mexico Y — Y — Agree Agree Unsure Unsure Unsure Agree North Carolina Y — Y — Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Ohio Y — Y — Agree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Virginia Y — Y — Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree West Virginia Y — — — Agree Disagree Agree Neutral Neutral Strongly Agree

66 TABLE A3 CRITICAL FACTORS FOR ADAB USE State Projects with High Levels of Traffic Projects with Higher Percentage of Truck Traffic Issues with Vertical Geometry or Clearance Issues with the Continuity of Adjacent Pavement/ Lanes Issues With Availability of Local Materials and Expertise Issues with Unstable Subsoils Work Zone Issues, Including Traffic Control and Safety Concerns Low Tolerance for Pavement Noise Lack of Competition of Pavement- Type Contractors: Too Much Single Bid Alabama No influence Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Suitable No influence — Arkansas Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable No influence Not suitable Suitable No influence — Colorado Suitable Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence Not suitable No influence — Florida — — — — — — — — — Idaho — — — — — — — — — Kentucky No influence Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence Not suitable Not suitable — Maryland No influence No influence No influence Not suitable No influence No influence Not suitable No influence — Michigan No influence No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable No influence No influence — Minnesota Suitable Suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable No influence No influence — Missouri Suitable Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence No influence No influence — Nevada Suitable Suitable No influence Suitable No influence No influence No influence No influence — New Mexico Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Suitable Suitable — North Carolina Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable No influence No influence No influence — Ohio Suitable Suitable Suitable Not suitable No influence Not suitable No influence No influence — Virginia Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Suitable Not suitable No influence No influence — West Virginia Suitable Suitable No influence Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable — Not suitable Suitable

67 TABLE A4 FREQUENCY OF CRITICAL FACTORS FOR ADAB USE State Suitability for Functional Class Traffic Level and Composition Complexity of Highway Geometry or Clearance Issues with the Continuity of Adjacent Pavement/ Lanes Issues with Availability of Local Materials and Expertise Complexity Due to Unstable Soils Work Zone Issues, Including Traffic Control and Safety Concerns Low Tolerance for Pavement Noise Proximity to Areas with High Percentage of Heavy Trucks Alabama Frequently Frequently Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasion- ally Frequently Rarely Frequently Arkansas Occasion- ally Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Rarely Occasion- ally Frequently Rarely Occasionally Colorado Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Frequently Rarely Occasionally Florida — — Occasionally — Rarely — Occasionally — — Idaho — — — — — — — — — Kentucky Not a factor Not a factor Rarely Rarely Occasionally Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Not a factor Maryland Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Michigan Not a factor Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasion- ally Occasionally Rarely Rarely Minnesota Occasion- ally Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Not a factor — Missouri Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Occasionally Rarely Rarely Not a factor — Nevada Frequently Frequently Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor New Mexico Occasion- ally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasion- ally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally North Carolina Frequently Frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Occasion- ally Frequently Occasionally Not a factor Ohio Not a factor Occasionally Frequently Frequently Rarely Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely — Virginia Occasion- ally Frequently Occasionally Frequently Rarely Occasion- ally Not a factor Rarely — West Virginia Occasion- ally Occasionally Not a factor Occasionally Occasionally Occasion- ally Occasionally Not a factor Rarely

68 TABLE A5 USE OF LCCA-BASED THRESHOLDS AND BID ADJUSTMENT FACTORS State Deterministic LCCA-Based Threshold for ADAB Probabilistic/ Stochastic LCCA- Based Threshold Non-LCCA-Based Selection Criteria for ADAB Use Bid Adjustment Factor Inclusion of User Costs in the Bid Adjustment Factor Alabama — Y None — Arkansas — — — None — Colorado — 10% — LCCA-based Y Florida — — — None — Idaho — — — — — Kentucky 20% — — LCCA-based Y Maryland — 20% — LCCA-based N Michigan 10% — — LCCA-based Y Minnesota 10% — — LCCA-based N Missouri — — Y LCCA-based N Nevada — — Y LCCA-based Y New Mexico — — Y LCCA-based N North Carolina 10% — — None — Ohio 10% — — None — Virginia — 15% — LCCA-based Y West Virginia 20% — — LCCA-based Y TABLE A6 LCCA AND PAVEMENT-TYPE SELECTION (PTS) PRACTICES State Documented LCCA or PTS Process LCCA-Based Methodology for PTS Type of LCCA Methodology User Costs Considered in LCCA LCCA Economic Analysis Method LCCA Analysis Period Includes a Major Rehabilitation The Most Current Discount Rate (%) Used for LCCA Alabama U N — — — — — Arkansas N N — — — — — Colorado Y Y Probabilistic Y NPV Y 2.36 Florida Y Y Unsure Y NPV Y 3.50 Idaho — — — — — — — Kentucky Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y 4.00 Maryland Y Y Probabilistic Y NPV Y 2.00 Michigan Y Y Deterministic Y EUAC N 1.50 Minnesota Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y 1.74 Missouri Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y 1.20 Nevada N Y Probabilistic Y NPV Y 2.80 New Mexico N U Unsure — — — — North Carolina Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y 1.50 Ohio Y Y Deterministic N NPV N 1.50 Virginia Y Y Probabilistic Y NPV Y 3.00 West Virginia Y Y Unsure Y NPV Y —

69 TABLE A7 TYPICAL PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODOLOGIES State Flexible Pavement Design Methodology Rigid Pavement Design Methodology Pavement Design Methodology Changed for Equivalent Design LCCA Analysis Packages or Programs Alabama AASHTO 1993 modified AASHTO MEPDG uncalibrated Y — Arkansas AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y — Colorado AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG N RealCost Florida AASHTO 1993 AASHTO MEPDG Y State-developed Idaho — — — — Kentucky State-developed State-developed Y State-developed Maryland AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y Realcost (customized) Michigan AASHTO 1993 and ME Both AASHTO 1993 and ME Y State-developed Minnesota State-developed State-developed NA State-developed Missouri MEPDG MEPDG N State-developed Nevada AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG Y Realcost New Mexico AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y — North Carolina AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG N State-developed Ohio AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 N State-developed Virginia AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y RealCost West Virginia AASHTO 1993 Other N Realcost (customized) Note: NA = not applicable.

70 Tables A8–B12 relate to agencies where ADAB is not used TABLE A8 FUTURE INTEREST IN ADAB FOR STATES NOT USING ALTERNATE BIDDING State Future Inter- est in ADAB Adoption ADAB Would Bene- fit Agency PTS Increased Competition Flexibility in Design, Con- struction, and Bidding Cost Savings Quality and Performance Improve- ments Accelerated Project Completion Better or Increased Use of Local Material Sources Alaska N N — — — — — — Arizona N U — — — — — — California Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Connecticut N U — — — — — — Delaware N — — — — — — — Hawaii N U — — — — — — Iowa N N — — — — — — Kansas N U — — — — — — Louisiana Y Y Y — Y — — — Massachusetts N U — — — — — — Mississippi — — — — — — — — Montana Y U Y Y Y — — Y Nebraska N U — — — — — — New Hampshire N U — — — — — — New Jersey Y U Y — Y Y — — North Dakota N U — — — — — — Oregon N N — — — — — — Rhode Island Y U — — Y — Y — South Carolina Y Y Y Y Y — Y Y South Dakota N — — — — — — Texas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah — — — — — — — — Washington Y U — — — — — — Wisconsin Y U Y — — — — —

71 TABLE A9 REASONS FOR NO INTEREST IN ADAB FOR STATES NOT USING ALTERNATE BIDDING State Statutory Constraints Industry Resistance Lack of Projects That Would Qual- ify for ADAB Lack of Resources Insufficient Experi- ence with the Process Internal Resistance to Change Alaska — — — — — — Arizona — — — — Y — California — — — — — — Connecticut — — — — Y Y Delaware — — — — — — Hawaii — — — Y Y — Iowa — Y — — Y — Kansas — — — — Y — Louisiana — — — — — — Massachusetts — — — — — — Mississippi — — — — — — Montana — — — — — — Nebraska — — — Y Y Y New Hampshire — — — Y Y — New Jersey — — — — — — North Dakota — Y — — Y — Oregon — — — — — — Rhode Island — — — — — — South Carolina — — — — — — South Dakota — — — — — — Texas — — — — — — Utah — — — — — — Washington — — — — — — Wisconsin — — — — — —

72 TABLE A10 FREQUENCY OF CRITICAL FACTORS FOR PAVEMENT-TYPE SELECTION State Suitability for Functional Class Traffic Level and Composition Complexity of Highway Geometry or Clearance Issues with the Continuity of Adjacent Pavement/ Lanes Issues with Availability of Local Materials and Expertise Complexity Due to Unstable Soils Work Zone Issues, Including Traffic Control and Safety Concerns Low Tolerance for Pavement Noise Proximity to Areas with High Percentage of Heavy Trucks Alaska Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Frequently Rarely Not a factor Not a factor Occasion- ally Arizona Frequently Occasionally Occasion- ally Frequently Frequently Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Frequently Occasion- ally California Frequently Frequently Occasion- ally Frequently Occasion- ally Rarely Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Frequently Connecticut Frequently Frequently Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally Rarely Frequently Delaware — Hawaii Frequently Frequently Occasion- ally Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Iowa Occasionally Frequently Rarely Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally Kansas — — — — — — — — — Louisiana Occasionally Frequently Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally Rarely Occasion- ally Massachusetts Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Not a factor Frequently Frequently Frequently Frequently Mississippi — — — — — — — — — Montana Occasionally Frequently Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally Nebraska Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally Rarely Occasion- ally New Hampshire Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Frequently Occasion- ally Not a factor Occasion- ally Occasion- ally New Jersey Not a factor Occasionally Rarely Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely Frequently Frequently Occasion- ally North Dakota — — — — — — — — — Oregon Rarely Frequently Frequently Occasion- ally Rarely Rarely Frequently Not a factor Occasion- ally Rhode Island Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Frequently Not a factor Not a factor South Carolina Not a factor Frequently Occasion- ally Frequently Rarely Rarely Frequently Rarely Occasion- ally South Dakota — — — — — — — — — Texas Frequently Frequently Frequently Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Rarely Frequently Utah — — — — — — — — — Washington Not a factor Occasionally Rarely Rarely Not a factor Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Rarely Not a factor Wisconsin Not a factor Not a factor Occasion- ally Occasion- ally Rarely Not a factor Rarely Rarely Occasion- ally

73 TABLE A11 LCCA AND PAVEMENT-TYPE SELECTION IN STATES NOT USING ADAB State Percent Concrete Lane Miles Percent Asphalt Lane Miles LCCA- based Method- ology for PTS Document-ed LCCA or PTS Process Type of LCCA Methodology User Costs Considered in LCCA LCCA Economic Analysis Method LCCA Includes a Major Rehabil- itation User Costs Considered in LCCA The Most Current Discount Rate (%) Used in LCCA Alaska 0% 100% Y Y Deterministic Y NPV Y Y 4.00 Arizona 10% 90% N N — — — — — — California 20% 80% Y Y Unsure U — — — — Connecti- cut 1% 99% Y N Probabilistic Y NPV and EUAC N Y 2.20 Delaware 6% — — — — — — — — — Hawaii 10% 90% U N Unsure — — — — — Iowa 2% 98% Y Y Deterministic N NPV N N 3.00 Kansas — — U — — — — — — Louisiana 35% 65% N Y — — — — — — Massachu- setts 0% 100% N N — — — — — — Missis- sippi — — — — — — — — — — Montana 20% 80% N N — — — — — — Nebraska 15% 85% Y N Unsure N NPV Y N 3.00 New Hamp- shire 0% 100% N N — — — — — — New Jersey 1% 99% Y U Deterministic Y NPV Y Y 3.00 North Dakota 10% 90% N N — — — — — — Oregon 0% 100% Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y N 1.50 Rhode Island 0% 100% N N — — — — — — South Carolina 5% 95% Y Y Probabilistic Y NPV Y Y 1.50 South Dakota — — — — — — — — — — Texas 10% 90% U N Unsure — — — — — Utah — — — — — — — — — — Washing- ton 5% 95% Y Y Deterministic Y NPV N Y 4.00 Wisconsin 20% 80% Y Y Deterministic N NPV Y N 5.00

74 TABLE A12 PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODOLOGY IN STATES NOT USING ADAB State Flexible Pavement Design Methodology Rigid Pavement Design Methodology Pavement Design Methodology Changed for Equivalent Design LCCA Analysis Packages or Programs Alaska State-developed FAARFIELD for aviation N State-developed Arizona AASHTO 1993, MEPDG and SODA AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG N — California AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG N RealCost Connecticut AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 NA RealCost Delaware — — — — Hawaii State-developed State-developed NA — Iowa AASHTO 1993 PCA method Y State-developed Kansas — Louisiana AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 Y — Massachusetts AASHTO 1993 with HMA specifications NA NA — Mississippi — — — — Montana AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 N — Nebraska AASHTO 1993 AASHTO 1993 NA State-developed New Hampshire AASHTO 1972 NA NA — New Jersey AASHTO MEPDG AASHTO MEPDG NA State-developed North Dakota — — — — Oregon AASHTO MEPDG and AASHTO 1993 AASHTO MEPDG Y State-developed Rhode Island State-developed — Y — South Carolina State-developed State-developed Y State-developed South Dakota — — — — Texas State-developed AASHTO 1993 NA — Utah — — — — Washington AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG State-developed NA RealCost Wisconsin AASHTO 1972 or ME design AASHTO 1972 or ME design NA State-developed

75 TABLE A13 COMPARISON OF NCHRP REPORT 703 AND NCHRP 47-20 SURVEY RESULTS State NCHRP Report 703 Survey (2011) NCHRP 47-02 Synthesis Survey (2016) Change in ADAB Use Alabama No Yes ADAB adopted Alaska NR No — Arizona No No — Arkansas No Yes ADAB adopted California No No — Colorado Yes Yes — Connecticut No No — Delaware No No — Florida Yes Yes — Georgia No NR — Hawaii No No — Idaho Yes Yes — Illinois No NR — Indiana Yes NR — Iowa No No — Kansas Yes No ADAB discontinued Kentucky Yes Yes — Louisiana Yes No ADAB discontinued Maine No NR — Maryland No Yes ADAB adopted Massachusetts No No — Michigan No Yes ADAB adopted Minnesota Yes Yes — Mississippi NR No — Missouri Yes Yes — Montana Yes No ADAB discontinued Nebraska No No — Nevada Yes Yes — New Hampshire No No — New Jersey No No — New Mexico Yes Yes — New York NR NR — North Carolina Yes Yes — North Dakota No No — Ohio Yes Yes — Oklahoma NR NR — Oregon NR No — Pennsylvania Yes NR — Rhode Island NR No — South Carolina No No — South Dakota No No — Tennessee Yes NR — Texas No No — Utah No No — Vermont NR NR — Virginia No Yes ADAB adopted Washington No No — West Virginia Yes Yes — Wisconsin No No — Wyoming NR NR — Note: NR = not recorded.

Next: APPENDIX B Research Needs Statement »
Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection 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 499: Alternate Design/Alternate Bid Process for Pavement-Type Selection documents the state of the practice in alternate design/alternate bid (ADAB) for pavement-type selection by highway agencies. ADAB is a contracting technique that allows the pavement-type selection decision to be made as part of the procurement process. Contractors are permitted to bid their preferred pavement-type alternative using real-time market pricing for the paving materials.

  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!