case studies on abc bridge bundling

Case Studies on ABC Bridge Bundling

Ahmad Abu-Hawash, P.E.Chief Structural Engineer

Bridges and Structures BureauIowa Department of Transportation

ABCs of ABC SymposiumDecember 4, 2020

Outline• Bridge Bundling Definitions and Motivation• FHWA 2019 Bridge Bundling Guidebook• State of Practice: Case Studies

• Michigan DOT’s Bridge Bundling Local Agency Pilot• Washington State DOT’s Project Bundles for Fish Passages• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Bridging Kentucky Program• Iowa DOT’s Bridge Bundling Experience• Other Initiatives

2

OutlineBridge Bundling Definitions and Motivation• FHWA 2019 Bridge Bundling Guidebook• State of Practice: Case Studies


3

Center for Accelerating Innovation

What is Project Bundling?Project bundling is a process by which a single contract award is used to deliver multiple preservation, rehabilitation, or replacement projects

…and so much more….

4

Source: FHWA

What is a “bridge bundling project”?

“

Source: FHWA Bridge Bundling Guidebook

Bridge Bundling ProjectA single contract award for preservation, preventative maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement of multiple bridges.

Bridge Bundling ProgramA defined set (or bundle) of bridges that are planned for preservation, preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement in a timely and efficient manner through a series of bridge bundling projects with the support of various funding options and/or partnerships that may include a program completion time frame.


Why Project Bundling?Bundling projects leverages design and construction expertise and achieves economies of scale.

6

Sources: FHWA; Culverts, Delaware DOT; Accessible Curb Ramp, U.S. Access Board


Why? Address program goals! Address infrastructure asset needs/backlog

(pavements, bridges, safety hardware) Improve system performance measures

7

Reduce design and construction costs with economies of scaleImprove project and program delivery timeTake advantage of financing opportunities Utilize agency staff more efficientlyDeliver transportation benefit to public faster

Project Bundling helps to:

Bridge Bundling = ABC

Bridge bundling lends itself very well to ABC at two levels:• Macro-level (or Program-level) – Allows owners to accelerate

improvements to their bridge program by bundling bridges, funding, permitting, etc.

• Micro-level (or Project-level) – Facilitates faster bridge construction through scale, efficiency, and sequence of construction


Goals and Objectives1. Achieve performance goals2. Save time3. Save design costs4. Save construction costs5. Take advantage of economies of scale6. Take advantage of available funding7. Take advantage of financing8. Deploy innovation9. Expedite project delivery 10.Utilize alternative contracting methods11.Coordinate construction staging – reduce public disruption


Goals and Objectives, cont’d.12.Start construction of multiple bridges simultaneously13.Maintain bridges in good and fair condition14. Improve bridges in fair condition to good condition15.Reduce bridges in poor condition16. Improve locally owned bridge conditions17. Improve surrounding land value, economic benefits18.Partner with other agencies to achieve efficiencies19.Create jobs in the construction industry20. Increase pool of bridge contractors in a geographic area21.Create opportunities for small and disadvantaged businesses22.Create on-the-job training opportunities


When to Use Bridge Bundling?

It is best when bridge bundling is used for:• Locations with no, or minimal, ROW acquisitions

• Locations with minimal environmental constraints

• Locations where hydraulic analysis is completed in advance

• Locations with sufficient advance geotechnical information


Outline• Bridge Bundling Definitions and MotivationFHWA 2019 Bridge Bundling Guidebook• State of Practice: Case Studies


12

FHWA 2019 Bridge Bundling GuidebookChapter 1: Define successful bridge bundlingChapter 2: Determine goals & objectivesChapter 3: Identify funding or financingChapter 4: Build a coalition & outreachChapter 5: Perform risk assessmentChapter 6: Select bridgesChapter 7: Select delivery methodChapter 8: Determine environmental review & preliminary design considerationsChapter 9: Bundle & let contract(s)Chapter 10: Conduct quality assurance, close-out & celebrate! 13

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/alternative_project_delivery/defined/bundled_facilities/

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/alternative_project_delivery/defined/bundled_facilities/

AppendicesA. Bridge Bundling Process Flow ChartB. Bridge Bundling Implementation ChecklistC. Case StudiesD. National Bridge Condition and Bridge Asset ManagementE. Finance MechanismsF. Risk Management Process OverviewG. Bridge Selection MatrixH. Alternative Contracting MethodsI. Alternative Technical ConceptsJ. Sample Contract DocumentsK. Other Bridge-Related InnovationL-1. Research: Capital Program Cost Optimization through Contract Aggregation ProcessL-2. Research: Quantification of Cost, Benefits, and Risks associated with ACMs and

Accelerated Performance SpecificationsSource: FHWA Bridge Bundling Guidebook

Outline• Bridge Bundling Definitions and Motivation• FHWA 2019 Bridge Bundling GuidebookState of Practice: Case StudiesMichigan DOT’s Bridge Bundling Local Agency Pilot• Washington State DOT’s Project Bundles for Fish Passages• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Bridging Kentucky Program• Iowa DOT’s Bridge Bundling Experience• Other Initiatives

15

Collaboration Coordination

Background & Overview

► 2016 - FHWA ‘Fast Act’ Bridge Program Incentive to Bundle Bridges

► Policy discussions underway at MDOT

► 2017 – Internal team began reviewing network-level data

► 2018 – Statewide Feasibility Study launched

► Engaged with PennDOT, MoDOT, and contractors on previous bundles

Source: Matt Chynoweth, P.E., Michigan DOT Chief Bridge Engineer, Director, Bureau of Bridges & Structures, 10-23-2020

MDOT Bridge Bundling Local Agency Pilot


Background & Overview

Pilot Development:

►Preliminary Screening - December 2019

►Procurement of Consultant Team – Early 2020

►Final screening & scoping - May-July 2020

►20 bridges advanced into final pilot bundle

Preliminary Screening

Preliminary List of Bridges

Final Screening Criteria

Final List of Bridges




Project Goals & Objectives►Reduce the number of Serious and

Critical bridges

►Require zero local agency match

►Develop Michigan experience implementing local agency bridge bundles

►Demonstrate collaborative, partnering model with participating agencies




Project Goals & Objectives► Deliver a successful pilot to

increase buy-in for a future collaborative and coordinated Michigan Bridge Bundling Program

► Develop maintenance and lifecycle bridge asset management plans for participating agencies

► Surpass DBE Goal of 5%




Project Schedule►Proposals Due – February 2021

►Contract Award – Expected March 2021

►Final Design – Spring/Summer 2021

►Construction Completion – November 2023



Outline• Bridge Bundling Definitions and Motivation• FHWA 2019 Bridge Bundling GuidebookState of Practice: Case Studies

• Michigan DOT’s Bridge Bundling Local Agency PilotWashington State DOT’s Project Bundles for Fish Passages• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Bridging Kentucky Program• Iowa DOT’s Bridge Bundling Experience• Other Initiatives

21

22

WSDOT Project Bundles for Fish Passages

Source: WSDOT Project Milestones

WSDOT US 101 & SR 109 Grays Harbor, Jefferson and Clallam Counties - Fish Barriers

This fish passage project includes 29 identified streams and culverts that cross under US 101 and State Route 109 in Grays Harbor, Jefferson and Clallam Counties needing correction to meet the project deadline of fall 2026 .

WSDOT considers to bundle multiple fish barriers each year as an efficient delivery method that will accomplish the overall project objectives with the least amount of impacts to travelers.

Washington State Project Bundling Examples

Key Advantages of Bundling for this Project:

1. Schedule: Strategy for project delivery of several elements including similar scope and geographic location, project team assignment, subject matter experts, teams to identify efficiencies, best practices and technical assistance to the project.

2. Decision-Making: The aggressive schedule will require timely communications and decision making to meet schedule commitments.

3. Tribal Communications: An integrated environmental and tribal strategy will be prepared to ensure clear and consistent communications across agencies and tribes.

4. Permitting: Expedite Permitting process that can be lengthy for projects with in-stream work.

5. Minimizing Traffic Disruption During Construction: With limited alternate routes, traffic impacts during construction are a concern to area businesses, property owners, and travelers.

Washington State Project Bundling Examples

Benefits of Kitsap Peninsula Project Bundling:Reduced Cost - Shared features leverages design expertise and achieves economies.

Coordinate NEPA Approvals - coordinating multiple locations with environmental oversight agencies.

Expedited Project Delivery - Using a single contract for several similar projects streamlines design and construction and saves procurement time.

Reduce Burden on Agency Staff - Reduce staff workload with fewer contracts to manage.

Increase Innovation Opportunities – Grouping projects creates opportunities for technical and financial innovations.

Increase Quality – Allows specialty contractors to produce quality work through repetition.

Benefit from Local Agencies - Smaller agencies can team up to form bundles of projects and enjoy the benefits.

Washington State Project Bundling Example


• Michigan DOT’s Bridge Bundling Local Agency Pilot• Washington State DOT’s Project Bundles for Fish PassagesKentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Bridging Kentucky Program• Iowa DOT’s Bridge Bundling Experience• Other Initiatives

26

27Bridge Bundling Guidebook

Case Study: Bridging Kentucky

• Years: 2019-2024• Cost: $700M• Goals: To rehab, repair, or

replace 1,000 critical bridges in 6 years

• Large Project Team• Directed by KYTC• 21 Consultant Firms• Deep Expertise in key

areas• Working alongside KYTC

Source KYTC

Date:• Bridges in all regions of state• Based on structure conditions• Distributed across the

Commonwealth• Concentrations

in East/West

Statewide Initiative

Source: Royce Meredith, P.E., Bridging Kentucky Program Manager; and Dr. Tony Hunley, P.E., Consultant Team Program Manager – 08/27/2020

Date:

Typical Bridges in Program

• Average 900 crossings/day• 18.5 feet wide/ 60 feet long• 60 percent locally owned • Weight restrictions limiting School buses Emergency vehicles Commercial users


Programmatic Benefits

• Large number of bridges• Ability to prioritize projects

statewide• Expedited project delivery• Significant savings (owner

cost & contractor cost)• Scalable solution to meet

short and long-term needs• Goal was efficiency


Project Delivery Alternatives

Key points• Project bundling

was a tool• KYTC used a

variety of delivery methods


Date:

Bundling Bridge Projects

• Type of work• Geography• No. bridges• Proximity• Contract type• Contract

amount• Scheduling

Considerations


Date:

Design Standardization


• Pre-designed common construction elements End bents

Abutments

Superstructures

Steel boxes

• Common design teams

• Expedited design

Date:

Summary of Lessons Learned

• Must be prepared • No one size fits all• Bundling could have

been more efficient Priority/pace dictated

initial bundling concepts Prioritized years 3-4

based on bundling but couldn’t use those due to budget

• Think of bundling beyond construction procurement


NEED IMAGE


• Michigan DOT’s Bridge Bundling Local Agency Pilot• Washington State DOT’s Project Bundles for Fish Passages• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Bridging Kentucky ProgramIowa DOT’s Bridge Bundling Experience• Other Initiatives

35

Motivation

Category National Rank

Number of Bridges 7th

Number of Poor Bridges 1st

Number of NHS Bridges 22nd

Number of Poor NHS Bridges 40th

Owners Number of Bridges

State 4,178

Counties 18,613

Cities 1,210

Total 24,001 36

Need For Innovative ApproachChallenges: Each county is responsible for own

bridges 99 different jurisdictions involved Preference for local control Limited funding and resourcesSolution: Bundling across county lines Iowa DOT let/administered supply

contract Each county retains responsibility IHRB Development of design

standards AID Federal Grant and IHRB match Extensive collaboration IHRB – Iowa Highway Research Board

AID – Accelerating Innovation Deployment38

Approach

Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB): funded a multi-phase research project to develop ABC Bridge Standards for Low Volume Roads.

HDR: Conducted a feasibility study to select bridge system in Phase I and prepared the design details in Phase II

State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) recommended AID Grant for funding a demonstration project.

Demonstration project to utilize the ABC Standards on multiple projects across county lines.

Iowa County Engineers Association Service Bureau solicited and selected bridge candidate for demonstration project.

39

Project Location

Bridge Construction Completed in 2020

Bridge Construction To Be Completed in 2021 40Source: ontheworldmap.com

Lessons Learned

• Bundling the materials under a DOT contract to assist locals was a success.

• Challenges with traditional supplier becoming a prime contractor• Originally included UHPC labor in contract, but removed after industry

feedback on mixing labor in a supply contract• Benefit the counties, their bridge was cheaper than traditional project

because of “free beams and UHPC” through the grant• Replacing bridges in poor condition

• Bid prices similar with or w/o bundle concept• Standards were new to industry• UHPC not widely used in Iowa

• Extra coordination needed between counties, contractors, Iowa DOT, Forterra

• Need for one point person to administer project• Beam construction and delivery based on each county bridge construction

schedule• Constraints on when UHPC should be placed after beam delivery

• Contractor education using UHPC• Use of UHPC training videos• YouTube Channel to share information

41

Resources

Project Videos: Search YouTube for “ICEA Service Bureau”

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvDukK2PHnPPLG8H32BNKw

Design Standards:https://iowadot.gov/bridge/bridge-and-culvert-standards/county-bridge-standards

Project Information:https://abc-utc.fiu.edu/mc-events/innovative-contracting-project-to-accelerate-replacement-of-multi-county-bridges-in-iowa/?mc_id=604

https://ideas.iowadot.gov/subdomain/news-2938/end/node/3108?qmzn=VoqGDZ

42

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvDukK2PHnPPLG8H32BNKw

https://iowadot.gov/bridge/bridge-and-culvert-standards/county-bridge-standards

https://abc-utc.fiu.edu/mc-events/innovative-contracting-project-to-accelerate-replacement-of-multi-county-bridges-in-iowa/?mc_id=604

https://ideas.iowadot.gov/subdomain/news-2938/end/node/3108?qmzn=VoqGDZ


• Michigan DOT’s Bridge Bundling Local Agency Pilot• Washington State DOT’s Project Bundles for Fish Passages• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Bridging Kentucky Program• Iowa DOT’s Bridge Bundling ExperienceOther Initiatives

43

Contract Duration & Bridges per Contract Bundle

44

Agency Funding Source

D-B-B CM/GC D-B P3

Duration (Years)

Bridges (per Bundle)

Duration (Years)

Bridges (perBundle)

Duration (Years)

Bridges (per Bundle)

Duration (Years)

Bridges(per Bundle)

Delaware DOT Federal –State

- 2-20 - - - 28 - -

Erie County, NY Federal –Local

2 3-25 - - - - - -

Georgia DOT State - - - - 3 5-7 - -

Missouri DOT Federal reimbursement bonds

3 2-10 - - 5 554 - -

Nebraska DOT SIB – Local 1-2 2-7 - - - - - -

New York State DOT

Federal –State

1, 2 2-19 - 2 6-16 - -

Northampton County, PA

Private –Local

- - - - - - 12+10 33

Ohio DOT GARVEE bonds

2-3 - - 3 2-6 - -

Oregon DOT State - - 7 3 - - - -

Osceola County, FL2

Local - - 7 13 - - - -

Pennsylvania DOT

State, Private –Federal

2 7-18 - - - - 25 558

South Carolina DOT

Federal –State

3-5 - varies 3-13 - -

RANGE - 1-3 2-25 7 3-13 2-5 2-554 10-25 33-558


Case Study: DelDOT Culvert Replacement Bundling Program

• Years: 2006-Present• Cost: $1M-$3M/Year• Goal: Replace hundreds of

culverts in poor condition• Bundled using D-B-B, IDIQ,

and DB• Environmental permitting

handled differently for each method

Source DelDOT


Case Study: Erie County (New York) Preventative Maintenance Bridge Bundling Program

• Years: Ongoing• Cost: $1M-1.5M/year• Goals

• Extend service life• Maximize funding

• $1M steel repairs (every 2 years)

• $1M deck repairs (every 2 years)

• $250K bridge washing (every 2 years)

• $200K deck sealing (every year) The original map is the copyright property

of Google® Earth™ and can be accessed from https://www.google.com/earth.

https://www.google.com/earth


Case Study: MoDOT Safe & Sound Bridge Improvement Plan• Years: 2009-2012• Cost: $685M (Total)

$487M(DB), $198M (DBB)• Goal: 802 bridges in 4 years• 42 Days Avg. road closure• Selection Criteria

• State owned• Poor condition• Limited or no RW needs• Small bridges (147’ avg)• Available detour route• Low-volume road• No RR or Historic bridges• Minimum Env. Permits Source MoDOT


Case Study: New York Works Accelerated Bridge Program

• Years: 2012-2013• Cost: $135M(DBB), $84M (DB)• Goals

• Reduce bridge decks in poor condition

• Jobs (2012 & 2013)• 116 bridge decks over 2 years

(81 DBB, 35 DB)• Bundled to maximize efficiency• Flexibility in contracts• Contractors gained efficiency

through repetitionSource Fort Miller Co., Inc NY


Case Study: Ohio Bridge Partnership Program

• Years: 2014-2017• Cost: $110M• Goal: Replace 200 locally

owned bridges in 3 years• Grant Anticipation Revenue

Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to pay for 80%

• Toll credits for 20% (No local match)

• Small bundles• Replaced 210 bridges due

to cost savingsSource ODOT


Case Study: Oregon Trans. Inv. Act (TIA) III State Bridge Delivery Program

• Years: 2004-2014• Cost: $1.3B • Goal: To repair or replace 271

bridges due to load rating analysis

• Bundled by corridor• 96 Bundles (2-13 bridges)• Formal program-level risk

analysis up front• Risk assessment for each

bridge performed • Delivery Method Chosen

• 85 D-B-B, 10 D-B, 1 CM/GC

Source Oregon DOT


Case Study: PennDOT Rapid Bridge Replacement Program

• Years: 2015-2018• Cost: $899M• Goal: Replace 558 bridges in

poor condition• P3 procurement (DBFM)• Consultant Program Manager• Private partner set the NEPA

impact footprint throughSpecial Experimental Program 15

• Participated in utility coordination• Outreach program to educate DBEs about program

Source PennDOT


Nebraska County Bridge Match ProgramSmall agencies can partner for economies of scale• With one another • With their State Agency

52

Source: NDOT

NDOT County Bridge Match Program sites.


Indiana DOT- Case Study Summary• Bundle various project types:

• bridge/culvert, road/pavement• Efficiencies in environmental approval and permitting • Standardization of design and construction methods• Shared resources: workforce, equipment, facilities • INDOT Admin. savings (e.g. contracting, letting)• Cost effective MOT• Efficiencies in contractor overhead• Scheduled accelerationCFO gives $50M back to the budget due

to expected project bundling savings53

54

• EDC web site https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/project_bundling.cfm

• Accelerated Bridge Construction webinar https://abc-utc.fiu.edu/mc-events/fhwa-bridge-bundling-guidebook-bbg/?mc_id=508

• BATIC Institute webinar Project Bundling Presentationhttp://www.financingtransportation.org/capacity_building/event_details/webinar_project_bundling_021220.aspx

Project Bundling Resources

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/project_bundling.cfm

https://abc-utc.fiu.edu/mc-events/fhwa-bridge-bundling-guidebook-bbg/?mc_id=508

http://www.financingtransportation.org/capacity_building/event_details/webinar_project_bundling_021220.aspx