1. Alternate Technical Concepts AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 28, 2010 Columbia, S.C. KATHY HARVEY State Design Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation

2. Project Development Process – New and Improved! TODAY’S PRESENTATION  Why  What  How  Challenges  Future

3. Project Development Process – New and Improved! Construction Program Cliff

4. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC WHY? – Best Value for Every $  Dwindling financial resources  Many ways to accomplish goals  49 other DOTs – municipalities - FHWA  Contractor’s experience

5. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC WHY? MoDOT + Industry = 1 Team = Best Value  D/B job experience  Encourage $ Savings  Contract administration  Contractor risk  VE vs. ATC

6. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATCs …  are proposed changes to agency-supplied basic configurations, project scope, design or construction criteria.  provide a solution that is equal or better to the requirements in the RFP.  are similar to value engineering, but are made as a part of the proposal before contract award.  provide flexibility to the proposers in order to enhance innovation and achieve efficiency.

7. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC WHAT? - Legality “ … likelihood of a protest reduced because of the reluctance of the courts to overturn agency decisions regarding advantages of one proposal over another, unless it is apparent that the decision was arbitrary or capricious, or agency failed to follow its own procurement practices.” -- NCHRP 561 p S-9

8. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC WHAT? – Different than D-B  Extension of design process - VE  Contractor is VE partner  Evaluate design effort vs. benefit  Design is funded as preliminary engineering

9. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC How? – Where we started  Rock – the deal maker  Profiles – can we roll?  Medians – width or protection?  Removals – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it  Retaining Walls – CIP vs. MSE vs. elimination  Materials – optional if we can  Traffic Control

10. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC How? – Recent additions  Bridge Designs  Interchange Configurations  New use for what’s already there Bottom Line – VE up front – Competitively Bid

11. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC HOW? – Grading and Drainage 4:1 Rock at 2:1 PIPE

12. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC HOW? – Pavement 4” Aggregate Base Pavement 10” PCCP/13.5” AC

13. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC HOW? – Pavement Thick Rock Base Pavement 8.5” PCCP/9.5” AC

14. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC HOW? – Bridges  Concrete Box vs. Arch Structures  Steel Girder vs. Concrete Girder  Box Girder vs. NU Girder

15. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC HOW? - General  Currently  Job Special Provision  May include sketches  Pre-approved design changes

16. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC HOW? – Pay Items  Plan Quantity of Initial Design  Lump Sum Sections  Lump Sum Savings  Change Order  Change to revised quantity  New plans for ATC effects

17. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC HOW? - Pre-Approved  Timelines – submittal & approval  Technical Parameters  Detailed Submittal Process  Evaluation  Project Team review  Confidential  Pass/Fail

18. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC How? – Design  Base set of plans always provided  MoDOT/Consultant re-design  Collaborative Plan Development  Re-design completion after award  Evolving Process

19. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC Challenges? – Design  Design effort for ATC submittal  Who leads ATC re-design  No cost change order  VE of ATC’s  Contractor incentive  ATC team w/AGC

20. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC Future? – Development  MoDOT  FWHA  Contractors  Suppliers  Consultant  ATCs and VECPs

21. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC Example – One that worked Route H bridge over I-44, Springfield  Reduced 4-span bridge over I-44 to 2- span with use of MSE walls

22. Project Development Process – New and Improved! ATC Example – One that didn’t I-70/I-435 Interchange, Kansas City  ATC eliminated 1 bridge, 3 MSE walls, reduced grading and lowered road-user costs. Saved $2.4 million.  Not approved by FHWA.  Now a VE proposal.