NMDOT AD-AB Story...T imeline –Phase 1 June 20, 2011: GCC Executive Team met with Governor Martinez, her Chief of Staff and NMDOT Cabinet Secretary to explain the objectives and

NMDOT AD-AB Story

2014 ACPA Annual Meeting – Scottsdale

CPU Session 9-2, Dec 5 1:30p

Pat Nolan - CSquare Value

Consulting in Concrete Pavement

Strategic Marketing-Construction-Design

ACPA-NM Interim Executive Director

Leading to AD-AB Policy

GCC of America (Enrique Escalante, Steve Ambrose and Rick

Percival) as owner and operator of the only in-state cement

manufacturing plant in NM deserves much credit for the

vision, fortitude and financial commitment necessary to

overcome significant cultural inertia and get this ball rolling.

This presentation will cover the highlights (& some lowlights)

of the nearly three years of activity prior to adoption of the

Commission policy as well as the step taken late 2014 to

establish an ACPA-NM with the significant “seed” support of

Cemex (Karl Watson and Mike Philipps); GCC; and Holcim

(Filiberto Ruiz and Mike Lively)

Many others helped make this happen

ACPA – Voigt, Wathne, Rodden and Scofield

PCA - RM/NW RPG: Clem and Johnson

Chapter State Executives: LaTorella, Youngman, Smith, Riley

DOT Professionals: John Donahue (MoDOT); Jay Goldbaum

(CoDOT)

CP Tech Center (Harrington and Fick)

Several NMDOT paving contractors, consultants, and allied

industry associates

The Commission and few inside NMDOT understanding the

opportunities for improvement with pavement competition.

Current Situation

In December 2013 the New Mexico State Transportation

Commission (STC) adopted a Commission policy

requiring NMDOT to use Alternate Bid Delivery for

pavement type selection for all construction,

reconstruction and major rehabilitation.

Details of implementation to be decided by NMDOT

staff

Implementation has begun – some challenges remain and

are being addressed.

Timeline

Oct-Dec 2010: Preliminary GCC discussions and Agreement

with CSquare Value to facilitate this effort

Jan-March 2011 Steering Committee develops strategy &

preliminary plans to meet objectives naming the GCC

Initiative as:

“Ask NMDOT to Reconsider Concrete Pavement”

April-May 2011 Contacts with selected NMDOT staff,

contractors, and NMDOT consultants to get some feedback as

to proposed approach before developing a customer

OUTREACH (PowerPoint) tool.

Timeline – Phase 1

June 20, 2011: GCC Executive Team met with Governor

Martinez, her Chief of Staff and NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

to explain the objectives and outreach efforts planned for the

“Ask NMDOT to Reconsider Concrete Pavement” Initiative

August 18, 2011: GCC hosted the Commission and NMDOT

Executives at the Tijeras cement plant for a facility tour and a

short presentation, Q&A of the Initiative objectives.

Aug 2011 thru Jan 2012: Complete comprehensive “Listen to

the Customer” Outreach meetings (3-4 hours each) in all six

Districts, with Santa Fe Executive and Support Departments,

and with FHWA.

Timeline Phase 2

Feb – July 2012

Implement and complete Blocking Points Survey

Identify District POC for follow up continuity for the

Initiative and specifically to keep pressure on for

identifying projects

Produce and distribute the STIP analysis for projects

GCC felt would be good potential for concrete

pavement.

Prepare distribute the Executive Summary and Report

“Status of GCC Initiative - July 2012”

Emphasis from Executive Summary July 2012

Timeline Phase 3

July - August 2012: Seek & have follow-up meeting with Governor and staff to report findings of NMDOT Outreach effort

July-Sep 2012 Commission Outreach

July 13, 2012: Meet with Commission Chairman Pete Rahn in Bernalillo, and he expresses support for the value principles.

Sep 10, 2012: Meet with Ken White, D2 Commissioner and former head of the Civil Engineering Department at NMSU. States agreement with general value principles; and thinks a Commission policy statement should be made to take action similar to recommendations

Sep 20, 2012 Commission Meeting Presentation: 5 minutes extends to 20 min

GCC Strategic InitiativeOutreach Meetings – Presentation & Discussion PowerPoint


Typical Outreach tool used at Initial District

and Santa Fe Outreach Presentations

Typical Agenda for Outreach Meetings

Introduce GCC of America

Provide overview of the GCC NMDOT Initiative

Discussion and Dialogue

Facts & challenges regarding PCCP

NM “Blocking” issues to use of PCCP

Added Value Principles to Consider

Policy / Procedure to enable change

GCC Initiative – Where we’ve been, …going

Concluding Remarks

GCC of America – who we are

Minot

Bismark

Moorcroft

Casper

Rock Springs

Denver

Irondale

Albuquerque

El Paso

Farmington

Alamosa

Clovis

Woodward

Hawarden

Sioux Falls

Brookings

Lakeville

Pueblo

Rapid City

Durango

Cement

Concrete

Distribution center

Coal mine

Representing GCC at Outreach Meetings

GCC America Executive Staff

Enrique Escalante – US Division President; 2008-09 PCA National Chair

Steve Ambrose, Exec VP Sales

GCC Tijeras Plant Staff

David Saegart - Plant Manager

Tour Guides: Pete Allan; Ed Mummey; Jay Schreffler; Mark Avila

GCC New Mexico Sales Staff

Rick Percival - Hank Hearon

GCC Consultant

Pat Nolan, CSquare Value; 2007 ACPA National Chair

Why a GCC Initiative with NMDOT?

PCCP has fallen out of favor with NMDOT engineers and

policy makers.

GCC has a large investment in people and plant in New

Mexico. For the GCC Tijeras cement manufacturing plant to

remain a viable business, there must be a future for a healthy

local PCCP industry.

Today, the local PCCP industry is not healthy. A very small

percentage of NMDOT contracts are specified with PCCP, and

a healthy industry depends on a reliable marketplace.

Streets and local road markets for PCCP usually mirror the

DOT. The DOT leads!

What is the GCC NMDOT Initiative?


First listen to understand what are the “blocking” issues, why

is PCCP rarely used in New Mexico?

Work with NMDOT to develop action plans to resolve current

concerns

Introduce/Discuss value-added principles

Identify specific potential PCCP projects in each District

Work together for continuous improvement and a healthy

PCCP industry in New Mexico.

Facts about PCCP

Today PCCP is often competitive on a first cost basis;

and is being designed to last up to 50 years with low

life cycle costs.

Competition between industries is the key factor to

realize the benefits of innovation and lower first and

life-cycle costs. FHWA policy encourages

competition.

Other DOTs are currently using innovative, cost

effective contract delivery methods and technically

proven PCCP options.

Challenges for NMDOT to Overcome

Implementing policy and process to enable change

Develop and commit to a pavement investment strategy

that will balance short-term critical needs with life-

cycle cost effective rehabilitation methods.

Create competition between industries

Local PCCP contractors are few

Alternate Bids with Life-Cycle Cost Adjustment

NMDOT recent experience with PCCP is limited

“Blocking” Issues to PCCP

Things we have heard in our “listening” campaign

NMDOT is on “maintenance only” budget & unable to pay more now to realize later life-cycle cost benefits

First cost of PCCP is, or is perceived to be high

Uncertainty of FHWA pavement type selection policy

Past quality or performance issues – maintenance problem

Traffic Management – especially in urban areas

NM PCCP contractors are scarce in number & experience

Contract disputes have been a problem

NMDOT knowledge of PCCP design, specifications, construction, quality control and maintenance is limited.

Inertia – FEAR of unknown

Added -Value Principles to Consider

Whitetopping

Life-cycle Cost Budgeting and Pavement Selection

Alternate Design - Alternate Bid (ADAB)

Develop industry input LCC adjustments to be added to

HMA and PCCP options for award of ADAB

Improve risk management with pavement options

Use “Mix of Fixes” to balance investments in short and

long term needs

Promote continuous improvement of performance,

quality and cost effectiveness of both pavement types

Policy / Guidance to Enable Change

Take deliberate steps to assure two healthy pavement industries competing for work.

Determine and use life-cycle cost (LCC) in pavement type selection process.

Use Alternate Design – Alternate Bid (ADAB) to stimulate competition; and use a predetermined LCC adjustment fixed in the Proposal to add to each option as a basis for Award.

Develop LCC process in transparent, cooperative manner with PCCP and HMA industries.

Establish NMDOT / Industry task group to determine how contract disputes can be minimized.

As presented to Governor Martinez and Secretary Dominguez

GCC Initiative – Where we’ve been

Meetings with NMDOT executive, district and professional staff;

FHWA, and NM contractors & consultants to discuss GCC

Initiative, “blocking” issues and value-concepts (April 2011- Jan

2012)

Meeting with Governor Martinez, Chief of Staff Gardner and

Secretary Dominguez to discuss GCC NMDOT Initiative (June 20,

2011)

GCC Plant tour & presentation for Commission & NMDOT

Executives (Aug 23, 2011)

Complete the initial “listening” dialogue with each District: #5 and

#3 completed Oct 27-28, 2011; #4, #6 and #2 Nov 9,10, 2011; and #1

Jan 30, 2012.

GCC Initiative – Where we’re going in 2012

Follow-up with each District to collaboratively

determine in a solutions-based dialogue what support the PCCP industry

can provide to help address the specific blocking issues and concerns of the

District relative to the future use of PCCP.

identify specific projects that could be viable options for PCCP or Alternate

Bids. We are asking that each District diligently consider upcoming projects

where PCCP or PCCP alternates could provide value in new construction,

reconstruction or rehabilitation.

Produce and share an “Status of the Initiative” of the findings of our

“listening” to the customer dialogue; and to suggest our recommended

actions to resolve major blocking issues and to encourage NMDOT to

consider changes in policy, practice and guidance relative to life-cycle

budgeting, alternate bids, whitetopping and the value to NMDOT of

assuring two healthy industries competing for pavements.

Facilitate site trips to expedite technology transfer from surrounding states

in whitetopping and 6x6x6 whitetopping options.

Industry support to NMDOT to bid & build successful PCCP projects

In Conclusion

For GCC to be a viable business in NM, it is imperative to have a healthy

local PCCP industry.

Likewise, to have a healthy PCCP industry in NM, it is imperative that

NMDOT realize value in PCCP

Today, we presented briefly the value propositions that are available to

NMDOT with PCCP

GCC will continue to commit resources and support to assure that your future PCCP projects are successful. We “Ask NMDOT to Reconsider Concrete Pavement” as a viable and important pavement option for the long-term management of the state’s pavement assets; and

We request the NMDOT transportation policy team to provide the policy and/or guidelines necessary to require LCCA and AD-AB for appropriate projects and to assure two healthy industries competing for NM work.

Questions – Comments

We thank you for your time and contributions!

Colorado DOT Whitetopping

Kansas DOT Whitetopping

December 2014 Update – Implementation Status

Manage Risk with Pavement Options

Taking deliberate steps to programmatically assure that there are two healthy pavement industries (asphalt and concrete) competing for state work is one of the most important things that NMDOT can do to create better value for highway users and New Mexico taxpayers. Such action will almost certainly over time be reflected in lower prices, quality improvement and innovation for both asphalt and concrete pavements.

When considering the benefits to New Mexico of sustaining competition between two pavement industries it would be prudent to carefully consider the future availability and price of asphalt binder. As recently as 2007, before the world financial crisis, asphalt supply in the Rocky Mountain region simply could not meet the demand. With Coker refining technology the price of asphalt cement now mirrors gasoline, not the residual “bottom of the barrel “ historical price.

A dependence on one pavement type severely limits options; and increases vulnerability to program stability. Strategic use of alternate paving options when supply of one pavement type is restricted or prices are escalating rapidly beyond expectation is a sound way to improve system performance.

Value-Concept

Life Cycle Cost Considered

in Pavement Selection


Life-cycle Cost Analysis

An asset management tool to analyze all costs incurred throughout the service life of a pavement structure, using the best available real data for initial cost, rehabilitation cycles, and routine maintenance to compare pavement options during pavement type selection.

A policy commitment to analyze and use the life-cycle cost of pavementoptions in making a project determination of pavement type is necessary to optimize the HIGHWAY system performance over time.

Without investing an “appropriate” portion of the available pavement funds to long-term, life-cycle cost effective solutions, the maintenance requirements of the existing system can spiral out of control at the expense of overall system performance.

Many states have a comprehensive process to use pavement management data to determine the present worth life-cycle expense of pavement options.

FWHA Pavement Policy - Current

23 CFR Ch 1 Pavement Type Selection; Policy Statement; 49482 Federal Register / Vol 46, No. 195 / Oct 8, 1981 / Rules and Regulations.

23 CFR Ch 1 Pavement Type Selection; Policy Statement; Clarification; Fed Reg / Vol 46, No. 216 / Nov 9, 1981 / Rules and Regulations.

AASHO “An Informational Guide on Project Procedures with Particular Attention to Contract Construction, Pavement Type Selection and ROW Acquisition”; Nov 26, 1960 (Referenced in 23 CFR Ch 1 above)

Clarification of FHWA Policy for Bidding Alternate Pavement Type on the National Highway System; Nov 13, 2008

23 CFR Ch 1 – 1981 Oct 8 & Nov 9 Clarification

“Statement of policy on how the type of materials used … in a

Federal-aid Project should be determined”

“Policy designed to provide the public with acceptable

highway service at minimal annual or life cycle cost while

permitting maximum flexibility. The policy encourages the

consideration of alternate designs and strategies in the type

selection process.”

1. “Pavement type selection should be based upon an

engineering evaluation considering the factors in 1960

AASHTO “An Informational Guide on Project Procedures”

(continue next slide)

23 CFR Ch 1 – 1981 Oct 8 & Nov 9 Clarification (pg 2/2)

2. Pavement type determinations should include an economic analysis based on life cycle costs of the pavement type. Estimates of life cycle costs should become more accurate as pavement management procedures begin providing historical cost, serviceability, and performance data. States without this data are encouraged to obtain it.

3. An independent engineering and economic analysis and final pavement type determination should be performed or updated a short time prior to advertising on each pavement type being considered.

4. Where the analysis reflects that two or more initial designs and their forecasted performance are determined to be comparable (or equivalent), then alternate bids may be permitted if requested by the contracting agency. Price adjustment clauses should not be used when alternate bids are permitted.

An Informational Guide on Project Procedures …

Pavement Selection (AASHTO 11-16-60)

23 CFR Ch I Pavement Type Selection Policy states “selection

should be based upon an engineering evaluation considering

the factors contained” in this publication

“Any decision as to paving type … should be firmly based.

Judicious and prudent consideration and evaluation of the

governing factors will result in a firm base for a decision on

paving type.”

Factors Governing Pavement Type - AASHTO 1960 Guide

“Unavoidably, there will be instances where the financial circumstances are such as to make first cost the dominant factor in paving type selection even though greater maintenance costs may be involved later. Where circumstances permit, a better and more realistic measure would be the cost on the basis of service life. Such cost computation should reflect original investment, anticipated life, maintenance expenditures and salvage value. Original cost can be fairly accurately estimated. Doubt as to validity arises in the case where a type of pavement has been given monopoly status by the long-term exclusion of a competitive type.”

“It is desirable that monopoly situations be avoided, and that improvement in products and methods be encouraged through continued and healthy competition among industries…”

Assigned maintenance costs will seriously affect the cost comparison. If these costs are to be are to be considered wholly valid, they must be based on accurately kept, long-term maintenance records reflecting an established maintenance standard adhered to in practice.

Value-Concept:

Alternate Design – Alternate Bid


Alternate Design - Alternate Bid (ADAB)

ADAB is a contract delivery method where the DOT provides HMA and PCCP designs along with a DOT predetermined life cycle adjustment factor for each option. Award basis is the sum of contractors bid and DOT determined LCC.

Primarily because of asphalt price instability and shortage, ADAB has been used extensively in many states the last few years, resulting in increased competition and lower prices. Many started in 2008 as a result of FHWA guidance on ADAB.

Clarification of FHWA Policy for Bidding Alternate

Pavement Type on NHS (11-13-08)

“Recent changes in pavement materials costs have impacted the competitive environment relative to the determination of the most cost effective pavement …. In response SHA have renewed interest in using alternate bidding procedures to determine the appropriate pavement type”

“Factors that should be considered prior to making the determination to utilize alternate bidding:

Designs must be equivalent .. Performs equally, provide the same level of service, offer the same performance period, and has similar life-cycle costs.”

Other factors include Realistic discount rate, Consideration of uncertainty, Realistic rehabilitation strategy, Subjective Considerations and Appropriate application.

Factor to consider after decision to bid alternates:

Commodity price adjustment (escalators) factors should not be used

Material quantity risk should be balance risk to bidders – per ton versus per sy

SEP 14 approval if using LCC adjustment factors

FWHA Division must concur with finding of equivalency when no LCC adjustment factor is used.

States using Alternate Bids (As of March 16, 2011)

Colorado - 08

Kansas - 08

Oklahoma -08

Utah -08

Idaho -10

Missouri -03

Arkansas -08

Louisiana

Kentucky -08

West Virginia -08

Minnesota - Ex

Michigan -01

Indiana -09

Illinois- Ex

Ohio -09

Pennsylvania -09

Alabama -04

Georgia -10

North Carolina 08

Accepted/Routine

New Mexico Alternate Bid Experience

NMDOT began using ADAB with 2007 asphalt shortages and sky-

rocketing prices. PCCP and HMA pavement options were bid head to

head with award based on low first cost.

“Good-News” - PCCP was shown to be competitive on first cost basis.

Attesting to this a well respected NM HMA contractor bid PCC at

$27.58 million, $1.54 million (5.2% lower) than it HMA bid.

“Bad-News” - A 15 mile project on US 64 was awarded with an HMA bid

of $26.27 million, $115,000 (.44%) lower than the PCCP option.

“Good-News” – There is a mechanism under FHWA regulations to allow

consideration of a Life-Cycle Adjustment in award. SEP 14 Innovative

Contracting

What are NMDOT Regulatory Constraints?

Opinion of Dan Gershon, Deputy General Counsel at NMDOT (as

represented by GCC Consultant Hal Stratton of Brownstein Hyatt Farber

Schreck, LLP in his phone conversation on 8-29-11)

NMDOT “cannot factor in the life cycle issues upon evaluating the bids. The life

cycle factoring has to be done by those making the decisions on the design, i.e., do

they want asphalt for the particular job or concrete? Once they have made that

decision, it then goes out to the lowest qualified bidder.”

Therefore NMDOT may choose to bid either a PCCP or an HMA pavement based

on their engineering analysis of the best available solution considering among other

factors, life cycle costs; then award must be to the lowest qualified bidder.

However to stimulate competition NMDOT may, as many other states have, choose

to use an Alternate Design-Alternate Bid (ADAB) strategy, determining and

including in the RFP a specific life-cycle cost adjustment (determined by

NMDOT) to add to each bidder’s pavement option for award to the lowest qualified

bidder including the adjustment. (Requires using FHWA SEP 14)

Fact

Concrete Pavement is Now

First Cost Competitive


Value-Concept

Two Healthy Pavement Industries

Competing

Is Good for New Mexico!


Healthy Competition - CDOT Pavement Quantities 1/2

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Tota

l C

ub

ic Y

ard

s (2

T/c

y)

Calendar Yr Bid

PCC CY

HMA CY

Healthy Competition - CDOT Average Unit Bids 2/2

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

PCC $/cy 120.89 115.55 124.81 122.09 115.11 117.07

HMA $/cy 88.38 119.21 133.17 139.45 132.58 125.36

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Un

it C

ost

$

per

CY

Calendar Year

PCC $/cy

HMA $/cy

Linear (PCC $/cy)

Linear (HMA $/cy)

One Pavement Market Limits Options – NMDOT Quantities

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Pav

emen

t Q

ua

nti

ty B

id -

CY

Calendar Year

PCC CY

HMA CY

Linear (PCC CY)

Linear (HMA CY)

One Pavement Market Limits Options – NMDOT Unit Prices 2/2

-

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Pav

emen

t C

ost

-$

CY

e

Calendar Yeare

PCC $/cy

HMA $/cy

Linear (PCC $/cy)

Linear (HMA $/cy)

Value-Concept

Whitetopping Construction

Methodology


Whitetopping

Now used in over 30 states as a viable rehabilitation option, DOTs are extensively utilizing the design and construction methods of “whitetopping” and “6x6x6 whitetopping” as important parts of their rehabilitation strategies. The “6x6x6” indicates 6” thick with joints spaced 6’ longitudinal and 6’ transverse – no dowels, only tiebars in longitudinal joints.

These concrete overlays of existing asphalt pavements provide value options for both heavy interstate and primary highways as well as for intermediate and light duty secondary highways and urban arterials.

In many applications, the savings are significant; in first cost, faster construction, long-term performance and the related

life-cycle costs.

Whitetopping – Two types

Unbonded (thick) PCCP overlay of existing HMA

For heavy traffic these overlays are typically designed with 12’ longitudinal joints and 15’ transverse joints with dowels.

Bonded PCCP (thin) overlay on milled HMA surface

The thickness and condition of the existing asphalt are important considerations in the thickness design as this composite section is important in the load carrying capacity -- a minimum of 4”-5” of sound HMA is required to provide this bonded condition for a composite.

The 6x6x6 composite bonded overlay is used to successfully carry loads in the 20 to 40 million 18k EASL

CDOT Whitetopping – “Thick” Unbonded

CDOT US-287 Corridor – Ports to Plains Highway

6,000 ADT, 55% Heavy Trucks

1,000,000 18k ESALs per year

“Lone mile” test section of 6x6x6 whitetopping

Ports to Plains – CDOT Thick Unbonded Whitetopping

Sixteen years ago in 1995 the Colorado DOT undertook a new strategy

of “whitetopping” to ultimately rehabilitate 193 miles of US-287/40

from I-70 near Limon southeast to the Oklahoma State Line. The

objective was to improve performance and reduce the costs of the frequent

maintenance and rehab cycles caused by TRUCKS.

In 2010 heavy trucks were nearly 60% of 2010 ADT of 1560, 18k ESALS for

design were 530,000 annually (21 million for 40-yr design life).

To date CDOT has reconstructed 18 projects totaling 168 miles (87%) of

this corridor using “whitetopping” methodology, placing plain-doweled

PCCP overlays over milled existing asphalt surface.

Built half-width without detours, pilot cars safely leading traffic 24/7

through the project (or phase) limits set to assure a maximum wait in a que

line of 30 minutes. MOT was first considered “crazy”; but now a viable

and cost effective means to a desirable end with solid public acceptance.

Ports to Plains – CDOT Thick Unbonded Whitetopping

As a recent example of cost, a 212,084 SY” x 10.75” PCCP was

completed in 2010

PCCP CIP $27.36/SY ($91.62/cy) ($43.62/ton HMA-Equiv)

Milling and extra thickness to meet thickness incidental

Total Project Cost = $9.08 Million : $ 0.99 million/mile or $42.85/SY

including all costs: traffic control; grading; drainage; small structures etc.

To test a vision for the future CDOT constructed a one-mile research test

section near Springfield in 1997 to evaluate the performance of 6x6x6

whitetopping . The performance offers a great potential for major cost

saving without sacrificing. CDOT and other DOTs are looking at this

method for cost effective rehabilitation of primary and Interstate

pavements. This year the Kansas DOT is building two projects on I70 near

Salina with nearly 750,000 square yards of 6x6x6 whitetopping

Value-Concept

Thin (6x6x6) Whitetopping

is a Good Option to HMA

“Mill & Fill” Rehabilitation


CDOT 6x6x6 Whitetopping – Cost per SY

• COLORADO DOT THIN WHITETOPPING PROJECTS • Year CDOT Thick. Qty Unit Cost Unit Cost • Const. Region Location Inches in SY Per SY $ / HMA T Equiv • • 1990 4 SH-68 <=> Harmony Rd., Ft. Collins 3.5, 5 2,333 0 • 1994 1 SH-83 <=> Franktown 5 2,637 $ 18.00 • 1996 6 US-285 <=> Santa Fe Frontage Rd 5 2,370 $ 31.50 • 1996 4 SH-119 <=> East of Longmont 4.5, 5, 6 22,300 $ 11.40 • 1997 2 US-287 <=> South of Campo 6 25,813 $ 19.43 • 1997 1 I-70 <=> Eisenhower Tunnel Apprch 6 1,335 $ 35.00 • 1997 4 SH-6 <=> Fleming to East of Haxton 5.5 186,858 $ 13.65 $ 41.36 • 1997 1 SH-83 <=> Parker Rd. - Pine Ln to Arap 5 905 $ 30.00 • 1998 First Christian Church Parking Lot, Longmont 3 11,160 $ 10.00 • 1998 Centennial Airport <=> Jet Port Apron 6 29,455 $ 16.00 $ 44.44 • 1999 6 SH-83 <=> Rice to Orchard 5 91,614 $ 16.25 $ 54.16 • 2001 6 SH-121 <=> Wadsworth , C-470 to Parkhill 6 148,556 $ 20.00 $ 55.56 • 2001 WYDOT - Fox Farm & C Ave in Cheyenne 4 2,000 • 2001 1 I-70 <=> Eisenhower Tunnel Approaches 6 6,934 $ 40.60 $112.78 • 2002 1 SH-83 <=> Jamison Ave 6 97,684 $ 20.00 $ 55.56 • 2003 6 SH-121 <=> Wadsworth ,104th to SH-36 6 102,013 $ 14.35 $ 39.86 • 2004 6 SH-83 <=> Arapahoe to Orchard 6 97,575 $ 16.50 $ 45.83 • 2005 6 SH-83 <=> Quincy Ave. & Parker Rd. 6 38,055 $ 23.50 $ 65.28

• 2009 4 SH-66 <=> Foothills Hwy to US-287 6 243,952 $ 18.28 $ 50.78

• 2011 6 SH-0121 <=> Wadsworth, 88th to 104th 6 102,650 $ 19.89 $ 55.25

*To compare with HMA overlay (Paid by ton) the HMA-Equivalent per ton price of PCCP assuming 8% overrun to assure min thickness =

(19.89*36/6 = $119.34/cy neat) / (2T/cy = $59.67/ T neat) / 1.08 T gross/T neat = $ 55.25/T HMA-Equivalent

KDOT 6x6x6 Whitetopping

Slides provided by

13

Project Cost Information

Two projects bid sy & cuyd (non QC/QA)

$3.50 per square yard plus

$75.00 per cubic yard

$16.00 per square yard combined (775,000 sy)

Two projects bid sy only (QC/QA)

$18.00 per square yard (675,000 sy)

NMDOT # 4C00002 District 4 Length: 7.66 mi

Biddate 11/18/2011 Route: I-40 MP 255.338 -263.000

County Guadalupe 7.66mi*5280*2*38/9 341,623 Est SY

Time: 100 WD Eng Est 6,831,648

Estimated - Low Bidder

It# Description Un Quantity 2010 Ave Unit Cost Unit Cost

Pavement Items for Whitetopping comparison

403,701 Open Graded Friction Course T 7,841 81.19 636,611 85.00 666,485

407,000 Asphalt Material for Tack T 161 461.50 74,302 400.00 64,400

414,000 Cold Mill (Asphalt) sy-in 1,635,950 0.42 687,099 0.45 736,178

423,282 HMA SP-III T 90,210 52.89 4,771,207 57.00 5,141,970

631,000 Rumble Strips 161,900 0.15 24,285 0.10 16,190

Total Cost Paving Items 6,193,503 6,625,223

Cost /SY HMA Rehab

18.13 19.39

Equivalent Cost/cy 6x6x6 108.78 116.36 Pavement Items Bid versus 2010 Ave units 6.97%

Total Bid Project 7,849,000

Bid to Engr Estimate 14.89%

I40 NMDOT HMA Mill/Fill RehabHow does cost compare with CDOT & KDOT 6x6x6 Whitetopping?

CDOT Whitetopping

Major Urban Arterial - 250,000 WY reconstructed in 50 Work Days

6x6x6 Whitetopping

US-287 Wadsworth

After 10 years service

1 of 5

CDOT Thin Whitetopping - 6x6x6 Works

Small panels reduce curling stresses and control longitudinal cracks

US-83 Parker Road

2011

2 of 5

CDOT Thin Whitetopping - Why does it work?

“Traditional” Design – 12’x15’ panels > Longitudinal cracks

US-83 Parker Road 2006

5” Whitetopping

1,400,000 ESAL Driving Lane

3 of 5

CDOT 6x6x6 Whitetopping

A lot of joint cutting requires planning and innovation

Using automated gang saws for

longitudinal joints

4 of 5

CDOT 6x6x6 Whitetopping - Value-based Quality

Innovation > Placing Monolithic Curb & Gutter with Overlay

US-83 Parker Road

2011

KDOT 6x6x6 Whitetopping As presented at 2012 UNM Paving Conference January 10, 2012

1

“Kansas DOT 6” Bonded Concrete Overlays on I-70”

By

Todd M. LaTorella, P.E.

Executive Director

MO/KS Chapter

American Concrete Pavement Association

www.moksacpa.com

1 of 12


Presentation Outline•How did we (KDOT/Industry) get here?

•I-70 Project Information

•Why KDOT chose the concrete overlay solution for these projects?

•Bonded overlay technology overview

•Project Design

•Project Construction

•Project Cost Information

•Q&A???

2

2of 12


Existing Pavement Structure•Original construction - 1964

•17.5” HMA

•8.7” HMA added over 42 years

•Pavement Cores

•9.5” good material

•12.2” fair material

•2.5” poor material

3

3 of 12


Typical Section•Interstate four-lane divided roadway with 6’ inside and 10’ outside

shoulders

•Profile mill 6” and 6” PCCP inlay

•6’ x 6’ panels on mainline and inside shoulder with 6’ x 5’ panels

on outside shoulder (10’)

•Tie bars in all longitudinal joints @ 3’ oc

4

4 of 12


I70 near Salina – 4 projects 1.5 million sy

5

5 of 12


Slides provided by

5

6 of 12


Slides provided by

6

7 of 12


Slides provided by

7

8 of 12


Slides provided by

9

9 of 12


Slides provided by

10

10 of 12


Slides provided by

11

11 of 12


Slides provided by

12

“Listening to the customer” Contacts in Outreach Activities

Administration & Santa Fe Headquarters

Governor Martinez Alvin Dominguez Keith Gardner Ryan Cangiolosi

Paul Gray Kathy Bender Max Valerio Ernest Archuleta

Jeff Mann Bryce Simons

State Highway Commissioners (August Plant tour)

Districts

#2 Preliminary Gary Shubert; Ishmael Dominguez; Bob Kurtz

#3 Kathy Trujillo; Tony Abbo; Keun-Wook Ti; Mike Vigil; Ted Barela; Rudy Padilla

#5 Miguel Gabeldon; David Martinez; Simon Sena; Leonard Chavez, Phil Gallegos, David

Quintana

#4 Jimmy Camp; David Trujillo; Heather Sandoval; Mohammad Assad; Adam Romero

#6 Larry Maynard; Don Abeyta; Lisa Boyd Vega

#2 Gary Shubert; Ishmael Dominguez; Bob Kurtz

#1 Frank Guzman, Trent Doolittle, Filberto Castorena, Harold Love

Other

FHWA New Mexico Division

Consultants: Ken Wylie; John Tennison; Rod Billingsley

Contractors: Dave Krueger; David Montoya; Griego Brothers; Chuck Hamilton; Allan Stott

MIT Research

Life Cycle Cost

Process

Comparison with HMA

Sustainability

Fuel efficiency

Inflation in LCCA

Other States are moving forward

Oklahoma Senator Vitter’s Bill S. 615 includes policy requirements and tools for LCCA (Life-cycle Cost Analysis); MEPDG (Mechanistic - Empirical Pavement Design Guide); and ADAB (Alternate Design-Alternate Bid) to promote cost-effectiveness, transparency and accountability in pavement selection process.

Major PCA /NRMCA research is underway at MIT to quantify the environmental, sustainability and life-cycle cost benefits of concrete construction.

Request to Governor Martinez

GCC respectfully requests NMDOT to reconsider concrete pavement as a viable and important pavement option for the long-term management of the state’s pavement assets; and

request Governor Martinez, Secretary Dominguez and the NMDOT transportation policy team consider and provide the policy or guidelines necessary to require LCCA and AD-AB for appropriate projects and to assure two healthy industries competing for NM work.

June 20, 2011

Policy Perspective Questions

Is a healthy concrete pavement industry in NM important to management of pavement assets?

How do you view the long-term supply and cost of asphalt cement?

Do you think life-cycle costs (LCC) should be considered in pavement selection?

You have used “Alternate Designs – Alternate Bid” (ADAB) as a tool to increase competition, improve prices and stimulate innovation; however without consideration of LCC. What do you think about this process?

Should “Whitetopping” and “6x6x6 Whitetopping”, now widely used in other states as a cost-effective rehabilitation option, be considered in New Mexico?

Is it important to improve design strategies, contract documents and QA training to assure that quality and schedule expectations are communicated and controlled; and contract disputes are minimized?

Action Plans to Address Issues

NMDOT create a DOT/Industry Task Group: “What process steps should NMDOT change to consistently and reliably assure successful design and construction of future PCCP projects?”

Industry develop issue paper and workshop training module to address NMDOT “blocking issues” Traffic management for PCCP projects

Routine pre-work meetings including

How to use ADAB with Life-Cycle Cost Adjustment

Implementation of AD-AB Policy

Jan 2014 Both industries (no ACPA-NM at this point) respond to

NMDOT questions through ACNM

Commission meetings – NMDOT Status Reports, on-going

June 3, 2014 – Industry (GCC, PCA and Adam Triolo) Submit

Comprehensive Report Answering Questions and commenting on

DRAFT Design Directive; then meeting June 5 with NMDOT Task

Group charged with making implementation recommendations to

Executive Staff

August 6-8, 2014– Agreement from Cemex, GCC and Holcim to

seed formation of Chapter; and EE letter to Governor w copies to

Cabinet Secretary and Commission announcing the same

Implementation of AD-AB Policy

August 14-15, 2014 Chapter Organizational Meetings with email

commitments from members

August 21 – Formal Announcement at Gallup Commission Meeting

with the BOD and members identified.

September 26, 2014 – Full-day “NQI” meeting (NMDOT and

ACPA-NM and APANM) to review Draft Design Directive and

LCC Adjustment Factors and arrive at mutual “consensus” for

moving forward.

October 24, 2014 NMDOT Reports to Commission ????

1st Quarter 2015 – BID first AD-AB projects for construction 2015

– Asked for six in June Industry Response as our “Expectations” in

4th Quarter 2014

NMDOT AD-AB Story...T imeline –Phase 1 June 20, 2011: GCC Executive Team met with Governor Martinez, her Chief of Staff and NMDOT Cabinet Secretary to explain the objectives and

Documents