1. Alternate Bidding in Missouri Transportation Estimators Association Annual Conference November 2-4, 2005 – Daytona Beach, FL Interstate 44 … South-Central Missouri

2. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process TODAY’S PRESENTATION  Background  Team Members  Goals of the Team  Risks Taken  Outcomes  Next Steps

3. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Background  Last formal review in 1998  Issues with previous methods (Pro/Con)  Industry concerns  Public told us: “We want smoother pavements.” “Get in; Get out; Stay out!”

4. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Background Why now?  Dwindling financial resources  More emphasis on maintenance instead of new construction  Establishment of department goals  Publication of RDT Pavement Report (2002)

5. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Team Members MoDOT + Industry  MoDOT  FHWA  ACPA  MAPA  Contractors (2 asphalt, 2 concrete)

6. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Goals of the Team Two desired outcomes … Provide public stakeholders with:  The best pavement product that can be delivered w/in current financial projections.  A clear understanding of pavement design and type selection process.

7. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process  Maintain two strong industries. Goals of the Team ASPHALTCONCRETE

8. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Goals of the Team NHS Remaining arterials Pavement Team Consideration Policy Decision 9,000 miles of MoDOT’s system carry 86 percent of the traffic (NHS and remaining arterials). Collectors

9. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Risks Taken  Existing risk if no action taken. Efforts by industry to mandate legislatively  Inviting industry to the table. Could parochial biases be put aside? Could discussions remain focused on topic? Alternate bids  Would more competitive bids be realized?  Organizational risk. Avoid skepticism & resistance to change

10. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Outcomes Life-Cycle Cost Adjustment Worksheet

11. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process LCCA Worksheet

12. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process LCCA Worksheet

13. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process LCCA Worksheet

14. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Alt. Pavement Update for Jobs Thru June 2005 with LCCA Factor  24 Alternate Projects to Date ($320.7 mil) 21 Full Depth ($295.3 mil) 3 Rehabilitation ($25.4 mil)  Full Depth 12 Asphalt Awards ($170.4 mil) 9 Concrete Awards ($124.9 mil)  Rehabilitation 1 Asphalt Award ($2.6 mil) 2 Concrete Awards ($22.8 mil)

15. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Results – Difference in Low Bids Low PC Bids vs. Low AC Bids LCCA Factor not Applied  PC Total – $223,509,000  AC Total - $220,580,000  Difference - $2,929,000 (1.3%) Low PC Bids vs. Low AC Bids LCCA Factor Applied  PC Total – $223,509,000  AC Total - $231,411,000  Difference - $7,902,000 (3.5%) LCCA Factor has Determined Low Bid 2 Times since October 2003.

16. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Results – Over 2 Lane Miles

17. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Results – Over 2 Lane Miles

18. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Other Facts  All Alt jobs with no LCCA have Asphalt awards  AC price Average for alternate paving projects is $36.78/ton or 15.7% lower than the 3yr ac average of $43.62/ton.  Concrete CY equivalent price for alternate paving projects is $96.77/CY or 6.3% lower than the 3 yr pc avg. of $103.28

19. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Outcomes  Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies For existing Portland cement concrete (PCC), both plain and HMA overlaid  Unbonded JPCP overlays  HMA overlays on rubblized PCC  Transition from existing pavement design model to new model (Mechanistic- Empirical).

20. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Outcomes  Clearly Written, Established Process Readable & Understandable Consistent & Efficient

21. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Next Steps  Phase two Implement new pavement design process.  Develop calibration model for Missouri roadway conditions.  Subsequent generation of M-E designs for pavement types selected by the MoDOT/Industry Pavement Team. Will result in variable pavement thicknesses dependent upon local conditions.

22. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Next Steps ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED  Some of the issues yet to be resolved: Finalize costs to be included in LCCA.  I.e., user costs, vehicle operation costs, etc. Review results from initial alternate bid pavement projects. Is staged construction a valid design consideration? Are full-depth shoulders cost effective?

23. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Next Steps ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED  Some of the issues yet to be resolved: Should noise impact and friction become pavement design considerations? Are recycled pavement savings tangible and should they be included in LCCA?

24. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Closing  We are committed to: Provide the best value to our customers. Keep industry involved as we learn more. Questions? Full report available on line at: www.modot.gov/newsandinfo/PavementTypeSelection.htm

25. Pavement Design and Type Selection Process Outcomes  New Pavement Strategies Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP), or Conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)  Polymer Modified Asphalt (PMA) – top 2 lifts on most heavily traveled NHS & principal arterial routes  Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) – top lift on interstates