Performance Specifications for Rapid Highway Renewal (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.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M REPORT S2-R07-RR-1 Performance Specifications for Rapid Highway Renewal Sidney Scott iii and Linda Konrath Hill International, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ted Ferragut TDC Partners, Ltd., Lewes, Delaware Stuart anderSon and ivan damnjanovic Texas A&M, College Station, Texas geraLd huber Heritage Research Group, Indianapolis, Indiana jim KatSaFanaS Michael Baker Jr., Inc., Moon Township, Pennsylvania Kevin mcghee, michaeL SprinKeL, ceLiK ozyiLdirim, and brian dieFenderFer Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Charlottesville, Virginia david merritt and dan dawood Transtec Group, Austin, Texas Keith moLenaar University of Colorado at Boulder michaeL c. LouLaKiS Capital Project Strategies, LLC, Reston, Virginia david white and vernon r. SchaeFFer Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

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 tech- nologies, 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 multiple 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 highway 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, published 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 Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement 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; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation 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 program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, 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 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 SHRP 2 Report S2-R07-RR-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27331-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014931775 © 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 publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce 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 prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment 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 numbers 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 monitor this project and review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars 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 Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical 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 advising 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. (Dan) 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, on its own initiative, 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 Sciences 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. (Dan) 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, interdisci- plinary, 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 transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the Ameri- can Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by James W. Bryant, Jr., Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2, Renewal. The work was performed under a prime contract managed by Trauner Consulting Services, Inc., in asso- ciation 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.; •   Kevin McGhee, Michael Sprinkel, Celik Ozyildirim, and Brian Diefenderfer 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; •  Michael C. Loulakis of Capital Project Strategies, LLC; •  Vernon R. Schaeffer and Alekhya K. Kondalamahanthy of Iowa State University; and •  David White and Thomas Cackler of Iowa State University. The team is also indebted to all those from AASHTO, FHWA, industry, and academia who gave their time to participate in workshops and meetings to share their expertise, vet the performance specifications and implementation guidelines, and help advance the demonstration projects. A listing of those individuals is provided in Appendix A. 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

The majority of specifications used by state departments of transportation (DOTs) attempt to describe how a construction contractor should conduct certain operations using mini- mum standards of equipment and materials. These prescriptive specifications, commonly known as method specifications, have generally worked well in the past. However, with changes in the technology and the emphasis on providing more rapid solutions, more inno- vative specifications may be required in the future. Performance specifications can be used as a communication tool that translates the owner’s performance requirements into lan- guage 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 reduc- tions, 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 specifications in an effort to meet both the initial quality and long-term durability needs of the constructed products. Performance specifications have been used successfully on a project-by-project basis, but a general framework is needed to help agencies use perfor- mance specifications systematically. This report and the associated materials provide a framework that state DOTs can use to develop performance specifications; they include sample specifications language and imple- mentation guidelines for both managers and specification writers. The objective of this project was to develop performance specifications and strategies to accelerate construction, minimize disruption to traffic and community, and produce long- life facilities in the interest of rapid renewal. The final report documents the methodology used to create the products that were developed as part of the project. The products of the research include (1) guide performance specifications for different application areas and contracting mechanisms, which agencies can tailor to address project-specific require- ments; (2) an implementation guide for executives and decision makers, which presents a broad overview of the benefits and challenges associated 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 perfor- mance 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 pro- vide a starting point for an agency that wants to investigate the use of performance specifica- tions as part of its routine operations. F O R EWO R D James W. Bryant, Jr., PhD, PE, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Renewal

C O N T E N T S 1 Abstract 2 Executive Summary 2 Project Background 2 Research Objectives 3 Approach and Findings 4 Research Products 5 Recommendations for Future Activities and Implementation 7 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 7 Background 9 Research Products 10 Research Scope and Objectives 11 Report Organization 12 CHAPTER 2 Research Methodology 12 What Are Performance Specifications? 13 How Are Effective Performance Specifications Developed and Drafted? 16 Why Use Performance Specifications? 17 What Are the Risks Associated with Implementing Performance Specifications? 18 When Should Performance Specifications Be Used? 18 Who Is Affected by Performance Specifications and How Are They Affected? 19 CHAPTER 3 Findings 19 Performance Specifications 39 Value of Performance Specifications 42 Risks Associated with Performance Specifications 43 When to Use Performance Specifications 44 CHAPTER 4 Summary and Conclusions 44 Research Products 45 Demonstration Projects 46 Recommendations for Future Activities and Implementation 49 References 51 Appendix A. Workshop and Demonstration Project Participants 53 Appendix B. Definitions 55 Appendix C. Performance Specifications for Earthwork/Pavement Foundation 82 Appendix D. Annotated Bibliography

104 Appendix E. Assessing the Value of Performance Specifications 117 Appendix F. Lake Anna Demonstration Project, Virginia Department of Transportation 143 Appendix G. Delphi Survey Round 2 Results