History of Construction Contracting Methods Used at MnROAD Benjamin Worel, MnDOT Tim Clyne, MnDOT 4 th International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing Session 6b – General APT September 20, 2012 _______________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Presentation Outline Document its 26+ Construction Events Traditional (Design-Build-Build) Procurement Private Partnerships

Long-term accelerated pavement testing facility that gives researchers a unique, real-life laboratory to study and evaluate the performance of materials used in roadway construction. Owned and Operated by: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Office of Materials and Road Research) with help from its Research Partners MnROAD

MnROAD Layout Layout and Designs 3.5 mile (Interstate Mainline) 2.5 mile (Low Volume Road) Asphalt / Concrete / Aggregate ~55 – Test Cells (~500’ long) Don’t Know,3,5,10,60 Year Designs Cell Life Depends on Research Study Pooled Fund State (Formal or Informal) Study Local Road Research Study Research Partnership Research Need Until Failure

MnDOT Contracting Methods Available MnROAD has Used Design-Build-Build (traditional & tie to existing contract) Procurement (MnDOT purchase orders under 75K*) Private Partnerships (partner does the contract) MnROAD has Not Used Design Build Best Value Construction Manager General Contractor Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Negotiated Contract (under 150K*) Pre-Qualified Work (under 50K) Whitetopping (2004)

Design-Bid-Build Contracts Consist of both Traditional and Tied to Existing State Contract Year(s)Construction EventNo of CellsFunds Original Construction (Phase-I)23 ML+14 LVR25,000, Superpave Inlay2 ML58,000 (Tied) 1997Whitetopping6 ML116, Superpave and Large Stone Base5 LVR328, MicroSurfacing2 ML5,000 (Tied) 2000Thin PCC and Doweled PCC3 LVR226, ” Culvert Design1 LVR100, MicroSurfacing9 ML15,000 (Tied) 2004Whitetopping4 ML161, GeoComposite Barrier Drain2 LVR130, Major Construction (Phase-II)6 LVR + 2 Farm389, Major Construction (Phase-II)16 ML + 8 LVR2,233, SHRP-II Composite Pavement3 ML706, Stabilized FDR1 LVR65, Concrete Overlay2 ML463,592

Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts Traditional Process 1. MnDOT Develops the Plans & Special Provisions 2. Pre-Bid Meetings with Potential Contractors 3. Receive Bids from Contractors 4. Contract Letting 5. MnDOT Awards the Contract to Low Bidder 6. Construction (MnDOT Standard QA and Contract Management) Tie to Existing State Contract Process Use existing pay factors (don’t exceed 10%) Positive – Little upfront work & Others do Payments Negatives – Coordination and Innovation

Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts Research Positives Allows for typical construction methods and practices Skilled contracted workers – consistent workmanship Established formal contracts and contracting process Less risk to MnDOT and partners compared to other contracting methods Allows experienced MnDOT inspectors to assist researchers 60” Culvert Study (2000)

Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts Research Negatives At Times little Communication with Contractors The Research is not Typical Special Provisions - Little Room for Innovation Cannot Say try this and if that does not work try that Requires a lot of MnDOT and Contractor Time Upfront Contractor Risk – High Bids Limited Quantities – Short Test Cells Unique Materials/Construction/Equipment Shorter Work Duration Open Graded Stable Base (2011)

Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts Recent Research Innovations 2010 ARA Partnership to build SHRP-II Composite Pavements Consisted of Non-Traditional Construction Wet-on-Wet Concrete Paving Concrete Recycled CA in Mix Non-Traditional Aggregate Gradation Exposed Aggregate Concrete Surface Stone Matrix Asphalt SHRP-II Two Lift Concrete (2010)

Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts Research Innovation to the Process (how to lessen the risk?) 1. MnDOT Develops the Plans & Special Provisions Informational Meetings with Partners & Potential Contractors (Associations) Exchange of Ideas – Contractor Feedback Researchers then assist Risks/Rewards 2. Pre-Bid Meetings with Potential Contractors 3. Receive Bids from Contractors 4. Contract Letting 5. MnDOT Awards the Contract to Low Bidder 6. Construction MnDOT Standard QA and Contract Management Development of a “Practice Slabs” Pervious Concrete (2008)

Traditional Design-Bid-Build Contracts Research Innovation Outcome First Bids – Exceeded the Budget High bids on the SMA Surface Contractors had issues with two pavers and concrete mix gradations Reworked the Cells Designs Re-Let the Contract a Second Time with Success Learned from that Experience Listen more to industry Farm Implements (2007)

Procurement Contracts MnDOT Purchase Orders Lower Cost & Small Construction Efforts Simple Plans to Contractors (Requires Two Quotes) Award Low Quote Year(s)Construction EventNo of CellsCost 2000Oil Gravel2 LVR$40, MiniMac (MnDOT Equipment and Labor)4 ML15, Mesabi Hard Rock HMA & PCC2 LVR75, Flexible Slurry4 LVR$25, Chip Seal1 LVR$5,000 ManyPartial Depth Concrete PatchingmanyMinimal ManyHMA Crack Sealing & PatchingmanyMinimal

Procurement Contracts Research Positives Quick Turn Around Lower Overall Construction Costs Less Rules to Follow for Payment Keeps Mainline and LVR Open for Traffic Typically Involves a Partnership Research Negatives Follow-up Long-Term Research may be Missed Heavy Involvement from Others (Donation of Equipment, Labor, Materials) Sometimes Less Skilled Workmanship Less Construction Control Can Involve High Demands on Internal Staff (added work) Cannot Do this anymore

Private Partnerships Partnership Agreements No MnDOT Contracting for Construction MnDOT may Provide some Labor MnDOT Typically Supplies the Monitoring YearConstruction No of Cells Construction Notes MnDOT Construction Costs Only* 2005 Concrete Pervious Parking Lot 1 Partnership Agreement ARM donated materials and labor Concrete Pervious Side Walk 1 Partnership Agreement ARM donated materials and labor Diamond Grinding1 LVR Verbal Agreement Pooled Fund Study Stabilized FDR3 ML Partnership Agreement Road Sciences built the cells 0

Example of Private Partnership 2008 Road Science Partnership 3 Cells (mainline) 1 Cell (LVR) Observations 2.75” Interstate surface on engineered FDR Engineered emulsion provides a balance stiffness and flexibility. Benefits Design method for HMA Full depth repairs Design method for distressed pavements Sustainable practice

Private Partnerships Research Positives Partners are Engaged (Skin in the Game) Partners have Common Research Goals Good Relationship with a High Level of Trust Contractor can be more Innovative No MnDOT Contracting (Plans, Paperwork, Inspection, etc.) Research Negatives Partnership Agreements are not Full Proof Legal Documents Some Risk if Something goes Wrong (MnDOT owns the Roadway) Decisions can be made outside of MnDOT’s Control

Partnership Examples - Phase 2 Research  Aggregate Ready Mix Association of Minnesota  American Concrete Pavement Association  Applied Research Associates, Inc.  Bloom Consultants  Catepillar Inc.  Concrete Paving Association of Minnesota  Diamond Surfacing Inc.  ICL Performance Products Inc.  17 State DOT’s  FHWA  Environmental Protection Agency  Minnesota Local Road Research Board  Strategic Highway Research Program 2  Innophos Inc.  International Grooving and Grinding Association  Marathon  Mathy - MTE  Paragon  Portland Cement Association  Professional Nutrient Agricultural Association of Wisconsin  RoadScience  Western Research Institute  Natural Resources Research Institute  Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University  U of Wisconsin Extension Service

MnROAD Research Plan 1 - Design-Bid-Build Fully Recycled Roadway – Sustainability Thin Unbonded Fiber Reinforced Overlay Fiber Reinforced Whitetopping 2 - Negotiated Contract Dowel Bar Retrofit of a thin PCC with Grinding Diamond Grinding of Pervious Concrete Full Depth Reclamation of a low volume roadway 1 - Purchase Order (done 2012) Flexible Microsurfacing Unbonded Concrete Overlay with Fabric (2011)

Future Studies What will be MnROAD Phase-III in 2016 Probably - Traditional Design-Bid-Build Design Experiments with 20 years of experience Work Closely with Research Partners MnDOT LRRB FHWA TERRA Partners _______________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TERRA Board Members Industry  Aggregate & Ready Mix Association of MN *  American Concrete Pavement Association  Associated General Contractors of MN *  Concrete Paving Association of MN  MN Asphalt Pavement Association  American Traffic Safety Services Association  Caterpillar Global Paving  Mathy Technology and Engineering Services  RMC Research and Education Foundation  Road Science (Co-Chair) National  Norwegian Public Roads Administration  United States Federal Highway Association State and Local  Minnesota DOT*  Minnesota Local Road Research Board*  Iowa DOT  Michigan DOT *  New York State DOT  North Dakota DOT  Wisconsin DOT (Co-Chair) University  Iowa State University  Michigan Tech University  University of Minnesota * Past Co-Chairs

Issues Effecting Innovation and Construction Individual Operators and Equipment Effect the Final Product Impacts Research Study - Does not matter how many inspectors Weather has a Impact Contractors typically do early/late construction Contractors Doing Something New Communication is essential Equipment/Materials may not be Available Keep this in mind when contracting MnROAD LVR Semi (2012)

MnROAD Experience has Shown Each Contracting Method has its +/- Successful Research MUST have a Balance between Construction Funds Sensor Installation Well thought out Research Plan Implementation Plan Limited Research Variables True Partnerships Require Communication – Trust – Common Goals Essential for Successful Research Implementation Essential for Long Term Research Facility (TERRA and Partners)

Thank You Questions?