2016 AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction Big Sky, Montana th th August 14 to August 19 1 Table of Contents Monday August 15 ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Tuesday August 16 ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Wednesday, August 17 ............................................................................................................................... 16 Thursday August 18 .................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................. 46 Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................. 51 Appendix E .................................................................................................................................................. 66 Appendix F .................................................................................................................................................. 71 Appendix G .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Appendix H .................................................................................................................................................. 88 Appendix I ................................................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix J ................................................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix K ................................................................................................................................................ 109 2 MEETING MINUTES AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction Annual Meeting August 14, 2016 – August 19, 2016 Big Sky Resort Big Sky, Montana Monday August 15 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM Opening Session Welcome to the SOC, Malcolm Dougherty, Subcommittee Chair, CalTrans Welcomed everyone to 2016 AASHTO SOC meeting. Thanked Mike Tooley, Kevin Christensen and the Montana DOT for hosting. Thanked David Hoyne and the Section Chairs for the work they do for the subcommittee. Thanked FHWA and the sponsors. Appreciates the attendance from public and private sectors. Introduced Mike Tooley, Director of Montana DOT, VP of WASHTO. Montana Department of Transportation Welcome – Mike Tooley, Director Welcome to Big Sky, MT. Welcomed everyone to Montana and shared some history of the state. Emphasized the importance of safety and encouraged everyone to share their ideas and experiences. Introduced Lt. Governor Mike Cooney, Montana’s 32nd LT. Governor Welcome to Montana- Lieutenant Governor Mike Cooney Welcomed everyone to Montana and provided information the state’s demographics and their unique transportation and infrastructure needs. Emphasized how important tourism is to Montana and how transportation and tourism are very closely linked. AASHTO Update – Keith Platte Mr. Dougherty then introduced Mr. Keith Platte, AASHTO. Mr. Platte provided an overview presentation on the following AASHTO topics: (See AASHTO SOC Annual Meetings web page to view presentation): • AASHTO is a member organization • Committee Structure Update Will be finalized by Annual Meeting in November, Boston o 3 SOC will not experience any change o New structure will create more interaction between subcommittees o • SHRP2- Products that are a value to SOC members R07 o  Vermont, Maine, Missouri, Alabama, R06B- Techniques to Fingerprint Construction Materials o  Alabama, Maine, Tennessee R06D- Advanced Methods to Identify Pavement Delamination o  California, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Texas • AASHTO/ARTBA/AGC Discussion Papers o  Considering Risk Allocations Among Parties  Implementing the Use of Open Data  Revising Partnering: Avoiding and Resolving Disputes  Promoting Positive Messaging of Improved Project Delivery and Importance FHWA Welcome – Kevin McLaury, P.E., Division Administrator, FHWA Montana Division Mr. Dougherty introduced FHWA Division Administrator Kevin McLaury. • Mr. McLaury encouraged next-level thinking and the use of innovation. Also encouraged the use of performance-based approaches and performance measures. SOC Self Introductions – Subcommittee Members At this point, Mr. Dougherty invited delegates to provide self-introductions. Forty-three (43) State DOTs, the District of Columbia and one Canadian Province (ON) were represented at the meeting, as well as representatives from AASHTO, FHWA, AGC, ARTBA, ACPA, NICET, Academia, and the consulting and contracting industry. Representatives from the following member States were present: AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY. 9:30 AM – 9:45 AM Break At this point, a 15 minute break was taken. 9:45 AM – 11:30 AM General Session Moderator – David Hoyne, Subcommittee Vice Chair, VAOT Mr. David Hoyne, Vermont AOT and Vice Chair of the Subcommittee opened the General Session. He introduced the speakers below. Overview of the Two Medicine River Bridge - Bruce Kates, P.E., Jacobs and Associates The presentation addressed the following topics (See AASHTO SOC Annual Meetings web page to view presentation): • Project Introduction 520’ main span o 4 49’ width o FONSI o • Bid Process A+B Bidding o A= contract dollar amount o B= days to completion o • Foundation Drilled shaft o Cross hole sonic logging (CSL) testing used o Very large pier footings, o • Substructure • Cantilever Construction Discussion of the use of form traveler and construction from pier tables. o Discussion of the post tensioning o • Conclusions • Q&A: Chemical cooling used for mass concrete? o  Not in this case. Did not need it for the footings.  Fly ash and silica fume reduced heat of hydration CT: Disputes or discussions on longitudinal PT? o  Satisfied Was the caisson testing a state cost? o  Yes Claim on footer issue or pier table out of balance? o  No claims on project.  Stressed importance of Montana being in front Partnering used on this project? o  No Any other CSL anomalies? o  None other than the wagon wheel Did they finish on time? o  Yes. Transportation and Sustainability in Yellowstone National Park: A 144 Year Journey- Jim Evanoff, retired, Yellowstone National Park The presentation addressed the following topics (See AASHTO SOC Annual Meetings web page to view presentation): • Hamilton, MT Forest Fire Discussion 9000 acres burned, o • History of Yellowstone National Park • Park is currently looking for ways to encourage the use of mass transit. • Park recycling process • Transportation, wildlife and recreation balance 5 Federal Highway Administration Update- Rob Elliott, FHWA The presentation addressed the following topics (See AASHTO SOC Annual Meetings web page to view presentation): • FAST Act Dec 2015- 5 years of funding stability o $305 billion o Various other initiatives o • EDC-4 • Alternative Contracting Methods ACM Library o • NHI & other Trainings 11:30 AM – 12:00 PM State Discussion Topics Moderator – David Hoyne, Subcommittee Vice Chair, Vermont AOT At this point, Mr. Hoyne opened up the meeting for State Discussion Topics (See Appendices C, D and E for Questions and Answers discussed). The Subcommittee then adjourned for lunch. 12:00 PM – 1:15 PM Lunch 1:15 PM – 4:00 PM Section Group Meetings After lunch, Section meetings were held as follows: • Safety, Environmental and Workforce Development Canyon/Lake • Integrated Construction and Technologies Obsidian/Dunraven • Roadways & Structures Lamar/Gibbon • Contract Administration Madison/Gallatin 4:00 PM- 4:15 PM NTPEP Update- Ross “Oak” Metcalfe, Montana DOT & Darby Clayton, West Virginia DOT The presentation addressed the following topics (See AASHTO SOC Annual Meetings web page to view presentation): • Overview of the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program • Provided information to the states so they can make informed decisions for their programs. • NTPEP does not evaluate brand new products. Does not pass or fail products. Does not replace QA. • Intent is to simplify product evaluation. • $17k/year for a member-state • Construction Products, Traffic Safety Products, Maintenance Products • How to incorporate NTPEP into a QA program. 6 4:15 PM – 5:00 PM Section Chair Reports Safety, Environmental and Workforce Development: Rob Wight (Utah DOT) Integrated Construction and Technologies: Greg Mulder (Iowa DOT) Roadways and Structures: Marc Mastronardi (Georgia DOT) Contract Administration: Gary Angles (Ohio DOT) 5:00 PM ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned for the day by Mr. Hoyne at 5:00 pm. 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM Optional Evening Presentation Termination for Default, Preparing for the Worst- Scott Lowe, Trauner Consulting Services, Inc. This optional session by Mr. Lowe provided a presentation and discussion on the above topic for interested attendees. (See AASHTO SOC Annual Meetings web page to view presentation): • Terminating contracts for a contractor default. • Contractually based event Typically Section 108 in Specs o • Termination for default is a last resort decision • Three areas to consider: Overpayment, Waiver, Interference Owner has legal obligation to surety not to overpay contractor. o Waiver- permitting contractor to do work even when they aren’t meeting specs o  Delays in completion (time extensions given by the State DOT) Interference with the contractor’s performance o  “Cure period” time given in specs for contractor to fix their failures. • State procedures should convert termination for default to termination for convenience. • Default vs. convenience 7 Tuesday August 16 6:30 AM – 8:00 AM Research Subcommittee Meeting 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM Contract Administration Session Recognition of the extraordinary achievements of C.O. Gransberg. Moderator – Gary Angles, Section Chair, Ohio DOT The session was called to order by Mr. Angles. He introduced the session speakers prior to their respective presentations below. Dispute Review Boards Panel Discussion- Eric Kerness, DRBF, Ferdinand Fourie, Kiewit Corporation and David Sadler, Florida DOT, Eric Kerness, DRBF: • Review of the DRBF History of DRB o Various types of construction projects and delivery methods. o Use of DRB on D-B projects. o Ohio and WV use DRBs on all D-B projects o Use of DRB on P3 projects. DRBF created a task force on P3s and produced o white paper in 2015 Shared elements of successful DRB o Discussed typical DRB operations and how they work o Encourage resolution of disputes at lowest levels (job level) o DRB can provide formal opinions or advisory opinions by analyzing contract o documents and the facts and circumstances. Costs: less than 0.1% of the contract o Listed the primary benefits of the DRB o Current resolution rate: 85-98% (do not go to arbitration) o Florida DOT, WMATA and CalTrans have seen tangible benefits o Challenges listed: o  Lack of training  Roles/responsibilities not clearly defined  Use of Ad hoc boards prevents dispute avoidance Listed new DRBF initiatives o Ferdinand Fourie- Kiewit Corporation, Division Contract Administration Sponsor Speaking on the advantages of DRBs in Alternative Delivery Methods from a o contractor’s perspective Understanding the risk o Alternative Delivery Models o Nature of construction contract- complete, final, accurate, constructible o Realities of construction o  Always changes  Claims are complex and involve large sums of money Preferred role of lawyers in the dispute resolution process o Major areas of dispute o 8 States and contractors choose the DRB members o DRB is not there to fix errors, merely to point them out o Why is the process successful? Open communication o Summary o  Understand the shift in stakeholders flexibility/risk  Alternative delivery methods increases complexity of communication and dispute avoidance/resolution  A properly chosen DRB panel has proven to be one of the best means to bring projects in within time and budget David Sadler, Florida DOT Discussion of Florida’s use of DRBs o Use project specific DRBs on contracts over $15 million o Regional DRBs are used on those without project specific DRBs o Have been used on more than 800 projects. Hearings held on 250 projects, less o than 400 hearings. 60 recommendations rejected, half of which are from 3 projects $24.5 billion in construction o 0.08% of construction cost o Training- To become a DRB member, one must take the training and have o necessary construction experience  Don’t allow full time consultants and contractors to be members Regional DRBs are established as a pool of five members o  FTBA and FDOT State Construction Engineer decide on 3-member board Statewide DRBs have been seldom used o Recommendations are almost 50/50, state/contractor o Contractor is mostly in favor. Have a few issues. o Q: CA- best practices for why a candidate is rejected? A: Give a reason to why they are rejected. Q: Is there a formal partnering program in FL? A: Yes, formal partnering with DRB for disputes. Partnering can take too much time. Not all jobs have formal partnering. Q: Regional DRB- when are they used? A: Only on contracts that do not have project specific DRBs. Projects less than $15 million. Q: Clarify numbers for state vs contractor recommendations. A: Industry believes that the State still rejects too many recommendations. Typically rejected on issues outside of the contract. Q: How to ensure DRBs stop acting like an owner. A: This is a concern for DRBF are trying to emphasize this in training. Owners typically do not continue to choose this member. DRBF will have a list of recommended practitioners. Owners have the ability to remove the members. DRBF has the ability to remove the certifications of practitioners. Q: Has the DRB eliminated claims process? A: No. Q: Has the DRB process impacted standard contracts? A: Trends are evaluated and remedied statewide. 9 Quantification of Costs/Benefits of Alternative Contracting Methods- Moderated by Richard Duval, FHWA, Keith Molenaar, University of Colorado • Basic breakdown of traditional methods vs. ACMs • Breakdown of research objectives Benefits of ACM o Quantify costs, schedule and quality consequences o Update Project Delivery Selection Matrix o Provide best practices o Deliverables o • Project intensity- seeing CM/GC projects are the highest $dollars$/day • FHWA tech brief • Two-step process Contract admin database o Project Manager Questionnaires o • D-B-B, D-B-Low Bid, D-B-Best Value, CMGC • CMGC used on the most complex projects • Project duration: Design to construction completion • Low dollar projects were typically using D-B-B and D-B/Low Bid contract methods • White paper includes early work package best practices for CM/GC projects • Project Award Growth (comparison to Engineer’ Estimate): negative for DBB and DB, positive for CMGC. • Relationships between ACMs and Change Orders • Project Delivery Selection Matrix • Q: Is the Project Award Growth for CMGC impacted by the CMGC cost estimating process? • A: Not what we believe. • Q: As construction cost vs. engineer’s estimate vs. low bid discussion? • A: Do have the data to show this and will be in final white papers. 9:45 AM – 10:00 AM Break At this point, a 15 minute break was taken. 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM Contract Administration Session (Continued) ID/IQ Job Order Contracting- Moderated by Sue Eiseman, Kansas DOT Tom Ravn, Minnesota DOT, David Sadler, Florida DOT, and Charles Nemfakos, Montana DOT • Tom Ravn, Minnesota DOT Why do they use it? o  Multiple contracts of similar scope in close proximity Finished to date o  50 contracts  Over 100 task orders Types of work o Advantages and Disadvantages of ID/IQ o Funding/Groups o