FHWA Update AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 26, 2010 Columbia, South Carolina Jon Obenberger, Ph.D., P.E. Preconstruction Team Leader Infrastructure Office of Program Administration Federal Highway Administration

FHWA Update: Value Engineering Consultant Services Freeways & Urban Streets Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares – A CSS Approach, ITE Recommended Practice & Congressional Hearing on Practical Design FHWA Everyday Counts Initiative 7/26/20102FHWA Update

Value Engineering: Satisfied 2007 OIG Audit Recommendations & Findings: Update FHWA’s VE policy Integrate VE into FHWA’s risk assessment process Develop VE program goals & measures Promote successful practices Need to conduct VE analysis on required projects, increase % of recommendations adopted & conduct VE analysis earlier in project development 7/26/20103FHWA Update

Value Engineering: (Cont.) Updated FHWA VE Policy clarifies: When VE analysis is required Need for & typical elements of a VE program VE analysis process & key considerations When to conduct a VE analysis FHWA oversight, monitoring & evaluating of State DOT’s VE program & VE analysis on projects 7/26/20104FHWA Update

Value Engineering: (Cont.) VE Goals, Performance Measures & Thresholds: Goal 1: Maximize impact of VE analysis on projects cost & performance – % of VE recommendations implemented – % of estimated construction costs saved Goal 2: Quality of VE programs – # of State DOTs w/ formal VE policy – # of DOTs w/ established VE program – % of projects w/ VE analysis conducted prior to 30% design 7/26/20105FHWA Update

Value Engineering: (Cont.) Goal 3: Improve FHWA’s stewardship & oversight – Improve FHWA’s involvement in VE analysis – Ensure VE analysis is conducted on required projects – Integrate VE into stewardship & oversight plans FHWA VE goals, performance measures & thresholds: 7/26/20106FHWA Update

Value Engineering: (Cont.) 2010 OIG ARRA Advisory: VE analysis required on ARRA projects similar to Federal-aid highway program funded projects OIG findings – VE analysis: – Not being conducted on all projects – Being performed too late in project development – Staff involved in projects not aware of need to conduct & when to conduct a VE analysis – Not being conducted by locally administered projects 7/26/20107FHWA Update

Value Engineering: (Cont.) Release 2009 VE results Update VE regulations Update NHI VE workshop VE program performance monitoring Identify, promote & share successful practices Coordinate & share practices w/in VE community 7/26/20108FHWA Update

Consultant Services – National Reviews: Locally administered projects – high risk designation GAO Report 2008: – States increased reliance on use of consultants – Oversight & independence challenges – State DOTs & FHWA OIG Audit 2009 – oversight consultants indirect cost rates & costs claimed Federal-aid highway projects FHWA National Program Review /26/20109FHWA Update

Consultant Services: (Cont.) National reviews – findings & conclusions: ~25% Federal-aid funding used for consultant services Equivalent or alternative Brooks Act practices no longer allowed Consultant services used in every aspect of project development, delivery & program management: – Large % projects use fixed price-lump sum in State DOTs – Inconsistent procurement methods – Inconsistent program services & capabilities 7/26/201010FHWA Update

Consultant Services: (Cont.) National reviews – findings & conclusions: (Cont.) State DOT consultant services programs – improve: – Procurement policies, procedures & manuals – Consistency w/ policies & procedures – Oversight State DOT & local agency procurements Consultants serving in “management” role & agencies fulfill responsible charge requirements Conflict of interest - regulations & guidance needed 7/26/201011FHWA Update

Consultant Services: (Cont.) National reviews – findings & conclusions: (Cont.) Procurement methods complying w/ regulations RFP’s & contract requirements Acceptance & use of audits, independent cost estimates & contract negotiations using: – Indirect cost rates – Direct salary rates & total compensation – FAR cost principles 7/26/201012FHWA Update

Consultant Services: (Cont.) FHWA Activities: Continue collaboration w/ ACEC, AASHTO, ARTBA, etc. Use AASHTO Audit Guide & develop 3 training courses Developing FHWA Directive - certify indirect cost rates Update Federal Regulations (23 CFR 172) Completing cost recovery: – Determine final questioned costs – August 31, 2010 – Complete cost recovery – Dec. 31, 2010 Developing FHWA stewardship & oversight toolbox 7/26/201013FHWA Update

Planning & Designing Urban Streets: Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares – A CSS Approach, ITE Recommended Practice: Use CSS principles in planning & project development Collaborative & multidisciplinary development of project purpose, need, scope & decisions Flexible use of design standards & criteria based on projects context, competing priorities & impacts Balance setting, community objectives, all facility users, adjoining development, corridor & system needs 7/26/201014FHWA Update

Planning & Designing Urban Streets: (Cont.) Recommended Practice Describes: Process using CSS principles & framework for planning & design of urban thoroughfare design – Uses target speed, context zones & thoroughfare type – Don’t use – ADT, design speed or functional class – Provides guidance on trade-offs for specific cross- section elements & intersection design 7/26/201015FHWA Update

Congressional Hearing on Practical Design: Using Practical Design & Context-Sensitive Solutions in Developing Surface Transportation Projects FHWA, AASHTO, County, ACEC, ITE & Academic Reps. Congressional issues of interest – June 10, 2010: – How are projects fit into a community? – How to right size – what should be basis (e.g., practical design, economic reasons, community needs)? – Need to mandate practical design or complete streets policies & design standards for urban streets? 7/26/201016FHWA Update

Congressional Hearing on Practical Design: (Cont.) Complete Streets Legislation in congress: – Mandate all users able to travel on Fed-aid funded projects – States develop law & policy w/in 2-years Federal adoption – MPO’s develop policy Majority panelists endorsed: – Not requiring practical design standards – Rely on CSS principles - tailor project to meet context & needs Other interests endorsed: – Require project development process – doesn’t exist – Require urban street design standards be developed, adopted & used on projects – State DOT’s & FHWA won’t initiate 7/26/201017FHWA Update

FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative: Partnership w/ ARTBA, AASHTO & Industry Initiatives Focus: – Accelerate technology & innovation deployment – Shortening project delivery toolkit – Accelerate project delivery methods Efforts: – Promote innovative practices w/ guidance, outreach material, training & successful practices – Implement practices in each state 7/26/201018FHWA Update

FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative: (Cont.) Accelerate technology & innovation deployment: – Warm mix asphalt – Prefabricated elements & systems – Adaptive signal control – Safety edge – Geo-synthetic reinforced soil Accelerate Project Delivery: – Construction manager at risk – Design-build 7/26/201019FHWA Update

FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative: (Cont.) Shortening Project Delivery: Defining planning studies Expanding use of programmatic agreements Use of “In-Lie” fee & mitigation banking Facilitate advancing delayed EIS’s Clarify & use flexibility in preliminary engineering Legal sufficiency enhancement Flexibility in RW Utility relocation & accommodation 7/26/201020FHWA Update

FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative: (Cont.) Example – Utility Relocation & Accommodation: – Goal: Increase the use of innovative: Agreement provisions Construction contract provisions Reimbursement methods – Outcome: DOT to use of one of these innovative techniques on a project for the first time 7/26/201021FHWA Update

Questions? 7/26/201022FHWA Update