Developing the "Guide for the Process of Managing Risk on Rapid Renewal Projects" (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

47 A p p e n d i x d The key elements of the SHRP 2 R09 project research include the following: • Establishing appropriate rapid renewal project perfor- mance objectives and related measures; • Developing inventories of rapid renewal methods, risks, and feasible management actions; • Establishing an appropriate risk management process; • Developing a template for documenting assessments (also forms) and automatically calculating performance mea- sures, consistent with that process; and • Developing the guide, training materials, and other work- shop materials. Of these key elements, all except additional surveys con- ducted to support development of inventories are adequately discussed in the main text and in other appendices or are cov- ered in the guide. The following section provides more details on these additional surveys. Follow-Up Survey A draft survey for DOTs was developed early on in the project and then later revised under Task 2 to more efficiently solicit information on rapid renewal methods, their risks, and pos- sible mitigation from DOTs (see final version of question- naire in Figures D.1 and D.2). The team completed interviews with select DOT personnel. The results of those interviews are summarized as follows: 1. Deputy preconstruction engineer, Utah Department of Trans- portation (UDOT). The interview focused on UDOT’s accelerated bridge construction (ABC) program for 17 bridges using self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs), which is currently in design and construction. The main risk categories involved the potential failure of innovative equipment and the coordination with utilities/ stakeholders. Risk management actions included use of innovative delivery methods (design–build and CMR) and facilitated partnering sessions with utility partners. 2. Research engineer, assistant director, Texas Center for Trans- portation Research. The interview focused on the High Five Project in Dallas, which was constructed from 2001 to 2007. The main risk categories involved accelerated bridge design, off-site prefabrication of bridge elements, and the use of delayed-start contract provisions to allow contractors to prepare for in-traffic work before starting. Risk management actions included the use of perfor- mance specification for bridge design, lane rental provi- sions, incentives/disincentives, and extensive public outreach. 3. Director, construction, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The interview focused on the I-10 program of nine accelerated projects in Texas that was constructed from 2003 to 2008. The main risk categories were the coor- dination risk of maintenance of traffic and utilities on phased projects. Risk management actions included hiring a general engineering consultant to coordinate contracts with a focus on maintenance of traffic and utilities. TxDOT also employed incentives and disincentives at contract coordination points. 4. Senior transportation engineer, partnering coordinator, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The interview discussed the Fix I-5 in Sacramento, which was recently completed; it accelerated a 305-day project to 35 days through a full closure approach and use of innova- tive materials. The main risk categories involved public relations, management of traffic, and failure of innovative pavement materials. Risk management actions included early and continuous stakeholder interaction and com- munication. Caltrans also conducted extensive mix design research and off-site testing. Other Research Activities and Results

48 5. Project manager Region 1, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The interview focused on the widening of I-25 south of Denver, which is currently in the request for proposal preparation stage using a design–build approach. The main risk categories involved agency unfamiliarity with the process and Project Number SHRP 2 R09 Guide for the Process of Managing Risk on Rapid Renewal Projects: Short (Fifteen Minute) Survey Questionnaire on Managing Risk on Rapid Renewal Projects You are invited to participate in a study of managing risk on rapid renewal projects under the SHRP 2 program. Our project (R09) will develop a guide for risk management on rapid renewal projects. The guide is intended for use by transportation agencies to manage risk during the project development process. The guide will address methods for risk identification, assessment, analysis, mitigation, allocation, and monitoring, including methods to objectively prioritize risks and to objectively evaluate least two projects (case studies) and materials will be developed to implement the guidelines for these projects. Background To address the challenges of moving people and goods efficiently and safely on the nation’s highways, Congress has created the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). SHRP 2 is a targeted, short-term research program carried out through competitively awarded contracts to qualified researchers in the academic, private, and public sectors. SHRP 2 addresses four strategic focus areas: the role of human behavior in highway safety (Safety); rapid highway renewal (Renewal); congestion reduction through improved travel time reliability (Reliability); and transportation planning that better integrates community, economic, and environmental considerations into new highway capacity (Capacity). The Risk Guidelines are being developed under the Renewal Focus Area. The overall goal of the SHRP 2 Renewal program is to develop a consistent, systematic approach to performing highway renewal that is rapid, causes minimum disruption, and produces long-lived facilities, as well as satisfies the other transportation development objectives (e.g., minimum capital cost, minimum environmental impacts, maximum transportation benefits, etc.). The renewal scope applies to all classes of roads. Additional background on this topic is presented in the Task 1 (Gap Analysis and Detailed Plan) Report for this project, which is available from Dr. W. Roberds of Golder Associates by phone at xxx-xxxx or by email at xx@xxx.com. their mitigation/allocation. As part of developing the guidelines, the guidelines will be applied to at Figure D.1. Final survey questionnaire (page 1). ROW acquisition issues. Risk management actions included agency training and augmentation of ROW staff. See Appendix A for these agencies’ general contact information.

49 Questionnaire Basic Survey Participant Information 1. Name / Position / Organization? 2. Primary state / region working in? 3. Address, Phone, Email contacts? 4. Please check the item below which best describes your organization A. State DOT B. Other public agency C. Consultant D. Contractor E. Other—please explain 5. Please check your primary construction sector A. Highway B. Transit C. Other—please explain 6. Approximate size of your program ($/yr)? Rapid Renewal Policy/Market 7. Does your organization have an established policy re. rapid renewal? If so, please summarize. 8. Have you done or are you considering doing rapid renewal projects? If not, why not? If so, please continue below. Rapid Renewal Methods and Risks (if you have done or are considering doing Rapid Renewal Projects) 9. What rapid renewal methods (if any) have you used, or are you considering (please distinguish between actual and considered), in each of the following areas? A. Innovative Contracting/Financing B. Roadway/Geometric Design C. Structures D. Traffic Engineering/Safety/ITS E. Environment F. Construction G. Right-of-Way/Utilities/Railroad Coordination H. Geotechnical/Materials/Accelerated Testing I. Long Life Pavements/Maintenance J. Public Relations 10. What problems (with regard to the project performance objectives of Cost, Schedule, Disruption, Quality/longevity) have arisen (if used), or would you be concerned about (if being considered), with each of these rapid renewal methods? 11. How might each of these problems have been (if occurred), or could be (if not yet happened), addressed beforehand? 12. Are you interested in reducing risks (and thereby better meeting the project performance objectives of Cost, Schedule, Disruption, Quality/longevity) associated with Rapid Renewal Projects? If not, why not? If so, do you want to be actively involved in this research (e.g., have one of your Rapid Renewal projects evaluated using the methods developed in this research)? Figure D.2. Final survey questionnaire (page 2).