1. ABC POLICY DEVELOPMENT IOWA DOT Norman McDonald, PE Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Bridges and Structures MID-CONTINENT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION SESSION 2D AUGUST 15, 2013

2. Iowa’s ABC Experience Develop skills and design details through demonstration projects Invest in research with laboratory and field testing to confirm constructability and performance. Participate in national pooled fund studies Involve local construction industry and hold ABC workshops.

3. ABC Policy Development Goal is to create a statewide policy to determine when ABC should be used. Assembled a team of engineers from Project Delivery Bureau, Districts, Research, and FHWA along with representatives from Highway Division Management Team (HDMT). Also included industry representatives. Goal was to have a draft by July 2012

4. ABC Policy Development Conducted a survey of State DOTs Collected and reviewed all available policies Discussed the development of the policy with other states, FHWA staff, and national experts at various conferences and workshops Collaborated with neighboring states and hosted a regional policy forum Visited a State DOT with established experience in ABC

5. ABC Policy The Iowa ABC policy utilizes two decision making tools : –ABC Rating Score & Flow Chart similar to Utah as a first level filter –AHP Decision Making Tool as a second level confirmation and further evaluation of alternatives.

6. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

7. ABC Rating Score Concept Measures Measures are limited to data that are readily available in NBI database and can be programmed to calculate a Rating Score: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Out-of-Distance Travel (miles) Daily Road User Costs Economy of Scale (total number of spans)

8. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Use a value equal to the total number of vehicles on the bridge plus 25% of the AADT for any roadways under the bridge. 0No traffic impacts 1Less than 5000 25000 to less than 10,000 310,000 to less than 15,000 415,000 to less than 20,000 520,000 or more

9. Out-of Distance Travel (miles) This is a measure of the impact that a project has on vehicles when the construction site is closed to traffic. 0No detour 1Less than 5 25 to less than 10 310 to less than 15 415 to less than 20 520 or more

10. Daily Road User Costs Is the measure of daily financial impact of a construction project on the traveling public. Major contributing factors are out of distance travel (OOD) and AADT on the bridge. The standard method used for calculating user costs is the formula: DRUC=(AADT+2xADTT)xOODxMileage Rate The mileage rate is currently set at 37.5 cents per mile. Truck traffic (ADTT) is counted at three times the amount of other traffic.

11. Daily Road User Costs 0No user costs 1Less than $10,000 2$10,000 to less than $50,000 3$50,000 to less than $75,000 4$75,000 to less than $100,000 5$100,000 or more

12. Economy of Scale (number of spans) Accounts for the repetition of elements and processes, and how they relate to cost, as well as possible savings to future projects. Number of spans is used to account for repetition of substructure elements and superstructure elements. 01 span 12 or 3 spans 24 or 5 spans 36 spans or more

13. MeasuresScoreWeight Factor Weighted Score Maximum Score Weighted Maximum Score Average Annual Daily Traffic510505 Out of Distance Travel21020550 Daily Road User Costs41040550 Economy of Scale2510315 Total Score120Max Score165 ABC Rating Score(Total Score/Max Score)x100= 73 ABC RATING SCORE FACTORS AND WEIGHTS

16. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

17. ABC Rating Score Less than 50 Perform ABC AHP Analysis for Second-Stage Decision Making Use Traditional Construction ABC Rating Score 50 to 100 Does the Project Concept Team want the project to undergo further ABC evaluation? No Yes Does the project support an ABC approach based on OBS, District, and possibly others’ evaluation? No Yes District requests further review for ABC? No Yes No First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart

18. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

19. AHP Criteria Organization 19

20. Criteria  A decision maker can insert or eliminate levels and elements as necessary to sharpen the focus on one or more parts of the analysis. Less important criteria and sub-criteria can be dropped from further consideration. New Sub-Criteria

21. AHP Analysis Details Comparisons between criteria and between sub-criteria are performed using data from actual measurements or using a qualitative scale. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Direct Costs Site Constraints Indirect Costs Schedule Constraints Direct Costs

22. AHP Analysis Details Comparisons are also used to assess the extent to which one alternative satisfies a criteria over another alternative. Alt B 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Alt A Alt B Direct Costs Indirect Costs

23. 23Results

24. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

25. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

26. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

27. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

28. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

29. Calculate ABC Rating Score First-Stage Filter: Use First-Stage Decision Making Flowchart Second-Stage Decision Making: Use the ABC AHP Tool Project Delivery Concurrence Develop ABC Concept Alternative(s) and Estimate Costs Develop Traditional Alternatives and Costs Concept Team Recommended Alternatives Concept Selection and Statewide Prioritization Yes No  Determine Tier of Acceleration  OBS recommends ABC options based on Tier of Acceleration  MDT reviews OBS recommendations Yes No ABC Decision Process Flowchart

30. OBS Concerns Additional duties/assignments within OBS to perform ABC evaluation (i.e. AHP analysis) Additional time required for developing ABC design concepts Need to develop ABC design standards and policies Need to develop expertise to perform in- house ABC design or support/guide consultant design

31. OBS Concerns Accuracy of estimating cost for new ABC concepts. Unknown long term performance of bridges constructed with ABC. Need for higher level of construction inspection.

32. ABC Implementation Challenges Funding to offset ABC construction cost – need to identify new revenues or alternative funding Resistance from some local contractors to ABC – working with industry to change the climate Limited contracting methods – since Design Build (DB) is not allowed in Iowa we are looking at the partial DB option

33. ABC Implementation Challenges Design aids – we are working on ABC design policies, specifications and standard details. Limited experience in ABC design – several ABC projects have been identified to attain experience for our engineers.

34. Questions? Norm McDonald Director, Office of Bridges and Structures Iowa Department of Transportation Norman.mcdonald@dot.iowa.gov