Framework for Performance Specifications: Guide for Specification Writers (2013)

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.

Anne Spine = .198 S2-R07-RR-3 Framework for Performance Specifications Guide for Specification Writers Fram ew ork for P erform ance S pecifications S H R P 2 TR B 028567 SHRP2 R07 vol2 Cover Final No Mailer .indd 1 3/11/14 10:22 AM

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Sidney Scott III Hill International, Inc. Linda Konrath Hill International, Inc. Ted Ferragut TDC Partners, Ltd. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org SHRP 2 Report S2-R07-RR-3 Framework for Performance Specifications: Guide for Specification Writers

SUBSCRIBER CATEGORIES Administration and Management Bridges and Other Structures Construction Geotechnology Highways

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates mul- tiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the high- way research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, pub- lished in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic High- way Research Program, is a focused, time-constrained, management-driven program designed to complement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reli- ability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and commu- nity needs in the planning and designing of new transporta- tion capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The pro- gram is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understand- ing among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sci- ences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-R07-RR-3 ISBN: 978-0-309-27339-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2013957405 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from pub- lishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educa- tional and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate ac- knowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report num- bers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to moni- tor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical commit- tee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the Na- tional Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the re- search and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the pro- gram sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not en- dorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered es- sential to the object of the report. SHRP 2 REPORTS Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202.334.3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advis- ing the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initia- tive, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sci- ences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdis- ciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transpor- tation departments, federal agencies, including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Rosalind Gomes, Accounting/Financial Assistant James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Reena Mathews, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

vii This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials. It was con- ducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was man- aged by James W. Bryant, Jr., Senior Program Offi cer for SHRP 2 Renewal. The work was performed under a prime contract managed by Trauner Consult- ing Services, Inc., in association with Hill International, Inc., and TDC Partners, Ltd. Sidney Scott III (Hill) served as the co-principal investigator, supported by Linda Konrath (Hill) as project manager and Ted Ferragut (TDC) as co-principal investigator. Additional members of the research team included • Stuart Anderson, Ivan Damnjanovic, Ali Nejat, and Meena Nagreeb of Texas A&M University; • Gerald Huber of the Heritage Research Group; • Jim Katsafanas of Michael Baker Jr., Inc.; • Michael C. Loulakis of Capital Project Strategies, LLC; • Kevin McGhee, Michael Sprinkel, Celik Ozyildirim, and Brian Diefenderer of the Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research; • David Merritt and Dan Dawood of the Transtec Group; • Keith Molenaar and Shekhar Patil of the University of Colorado at Boulder; • Vernon R. Schaeffer and Alekhya K. Kondalamahanthy of Iowa State University; and • David White and Thomas Cackler of Iowa State University. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix FOREWORD The majority of specifi cations used by state departments of transportation (DOTs) attempt to describe how a construction contractor should conduct certain operations using minimum standards of equipment and materials. These prescriptive specifi ca- tions, commonly known as method specifi cations, have generally worked well in the past. However, with changes in the technology and the emphasis on providing more rapid solutions, more innovative specifi cations may be required in the future. Perfor- mance specifi cations can be used as a communication tool that translates the owner’s performance requirements into language that will allow the contracting industry to understand, plan, and build the project to meet the requirements. Over the past decades many transportation agencies have experienced workforce reductions, thus diminishing the level of experience and number of engineers and inspectors. These demands have caused some agencies to experiment with the use of performance specifi cations in an effort to meet both the initial quality and long-term durability needs of the constructed products. Performance specifi cations have been used successfully on a project-by-project basis, but a general framework is needed to help agencies use performance specifi cations systematically. This guide and the associated materials provide a framework that state DOTs can use to develop performance specifi cations; they include sample specifi cations language and implementation guidelines for both managers and specifi cation writers. The objective of this project was to develop performance specifi cations and strat- egies to accelerate construction, minimize disruption to traffi c and community, and produce long-life facilities in the interest of rapid renewal. The fi nal report docu- ments the methodology used to create the products that were developed as part of the project. The products of the research include (1) guide performance specifi cations for different application areas and contracting mechanisms, which agencies can tailor to address project-specifi c requirements; (2) an implementation guide for executives and James W. Bryant, Jr. PhD , PE, SHRP 2 Senior Program Offi cer, Renewal

xdecision makers, which presents a broad overview of the benefits and challenges asso- ciated with implementing performance specifications; and (3) a guide for specification writers, which provides a step-by-step “how-to” guide for developing performance specifications and using the model performance specifications that were developed as part of this project. The report, supporting guidelines, and model guide specifications will be useful to state DOTs, municipal agencies, consultants, and construction contractors. These products provide a starting point for an agency that wants to investigate the use of performance specifications as part of its routine operations.

xi CONTENTS xiii PREFACE 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Performance Specifi cations 2 Overview and Organization of This Manual 3 How Do Performance and Method Specifi cations Differ? 7 Deciding Between Method and Performance Specifi cations 9 CHAPTER 2 Developing Performance Specifi cations 10 Conceptual Framework: The Pyramid of Performance 11 Step 1: Identify User and Societal Needs and Goals 11 Step 2: Translate User Needs and Goals to Functional Performance Parameters 14 Step 3: Consider Project Delivery Approach 18 Step 4: Determine the Appropriate Measurement Strategy 28 Step 5: Structure Incentive Strategies and Payment Mechanisms 34 Step 6: Identify Gaps 36 Step 7: Identify and Evaluate Risks Related to Performance Requirements 41 Step 8: Develop Specifi cation Language

xii 43 CHAPTER 3 Overview of Guide Performance Specifications 44 Concrete Pavement 51 Asphalt Pavement 57 Bridge 65 Earthworks 71 Work Zone Traffic Control 71 Quality Management 73 REFERENCES Online version of this report: www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169109.aspx.

xiii PREFACE Transportation agencies are under increasing pressure to improve mobility while main- taining existing facilities with limited resources. In response to this pressure, agencies have begun experimenting with ways to accelerate construction and minimize disrup- tion while improving mobility, safety, and long-term performance. To help advance such initiatives, Congress established the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) in 2006 to pursue research in four focus areas: Safety, Reliability, Renewal, and Capacity. The Renewal area looks at improving the aging and increasingly congested trans- portation infrastructure through design and construction methods that will accelerate construction, cause minimal disruption to road users and the community, and produce long-lasting facilities. Recognizing that traditional method specifi cations can act as a barrier to the innovation often needed to achieve these objectives, SHRP 2 Project R07 was tasked with developing performance specifi cations that could be used to motivate and empower the contracting industry to provide creative solutions to save time, mini- mize disruption, and enhance durability. As an outgrowth of the SHRP 2 R07 research effort, the following guidance docu- ment has been prepared to assist specifi ers with the development and drafting of per- formance specifi cations. The guide presents a fl exible framework that specifi ers may use to assess whether performance specifying represents a viable option for a particu- lar project or project element and if so, how performance specifi cations may then be developed and used to achieve project-specifi c goals and satisfy user needs. The guid- ance is intended to be accessible to both experienced and novice members of a project team, as well as adaptable to any project element and delivery method. To demonstrate how this conceptual framework can be applied to different project elements and delivery approaches, a series of guide performance specifi cations was also developed under Project R07. Given the diffi culty in anticipating every rapid renewal