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.

2Project Background The conventional approach to highway construction places the burden on owners to design, specify, and control the work. Contractors are hired on the basis of lowest price with the expecta- tion that they will execute the work in accordance with the prescriptive requirements provided in the plans and specifications. Given societal changes and economic conditions, this traditional approach may no longer be sufficient to keep pace with the growing demands placed on our national highway system to move people and goods safely and efficiently. Recent infrastructure report cards indicate that the system is deteriorating and facing increasing congestion. At the same time, agencies are facing shrinking budgets and dramatic reductions in both the numbers and experience levels of inspec- tors and engineers. The complexity of high-speed construction, nighttime construction, and rehabilitation work amid traffic—all of which the public demands—further stretches available agency resources. In response to this widening gap between investment needs and available resources, transpor- tation agencies have begun experimenting with alternative specifications and contracting strate- gies that place more responsibility for performance on the private sector. The traditional way of doing business—using prescriptive requirements that tell the contractor how to perform the work—does not motivate the contractor to provide more than the prescribed minimum. The addition of performance specifications to an agency’s toolbox would provide the means to moti- vate and empower contractors to find creative solutions to save time, minimize disruption, and enhance safety and quality in the interest of rapid renewal. Within the Renewal focus area of the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), the R07 project was tasked with the development and implementation of performance specifications for rapid highway renewal. The project adopted a broad definition of performance specifications to address not only the performance of the physical products of construction (including pave- ments, bridges, and earthwork) but also contractor performance in terms of time, safety, work zone traffic control, and other important project parameters. Performance specifications were consid- ered in the context of different project delivery methods—including design-bid-build and design- build—and other innovative contracting variations involving warranties or maintenance and operation agreements. Research Objectives The stated objectives for this research project included the development of performance speci- fications and strategies to accelerate construction, minimize disruption to traffic and commu- nity, and produce long-life facilities in the interest of rapid renewal. Performance specifications Executive Summary

3can advance those objectives by reducing mandatory method requirements and defining end- product performance parameters that relate more directly to long-term performance. The proj- ect entailed developing a suite of performance specifications for use in various highway project types and contracting scenarios. In addition, implementation guidance was written to address project selection, specification development, risk allocation, and the transition from method to performance specifications. Approach and Findings A review of the state of the practice of performance specifying in the highway construction industry suggested that performance specifications can be viewed at either the product level (i.e., more prescriptively) or at a very high level (i.e., in terms of safety, worker satisfaction, innova- tion, and other project goals). The choice depends on the project’s scope and objectives, as well as the project delivery approach and risk allocation strategy. European highway agencies have developed and used performance specifications for longer and to a greater extent than their U.S. counterparts. Lessons learned from the European models suggest that successful implementa- tion of performance specifications requires changing the business model to promote collabora- tion, early contractor involvement, and integrated services (Cox et al. 2002; Egan 1998; Scott and Konrath 2007). The team established a step-by-step process for developing performance specifications, filter- ing existing performance specifications through the criteria established in the specification development framework to identify viable performance parameters and measurement strategies. Any existing performance measures that met the framework criteria were considered promising and formed the basis for initial brainstorming sessions conducted among the team’s internal experts. Those existing measures, coupled with the team’s own project experience, led to the development of draft performance requirements. In turn, those requirements were discussed and vetted with external representatives from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), industry, and academia in formal workshop settings. While critical to a project’s success, a well-drafted performance specification will not in itself ensure that an agency’s performance goals will be met. Cultural, organizational, and legal issues can also affect the successful implementation of performance specifications. For this reason, the team prepared implementation guidelines to accompany the guide specifications. In doing so, the team reviewed the existing literature, had discussions with practitioners from agencies and industry, and identified lessons learned from demonstration projects to address the following points: • How the decision to use performance specifications could affect an agency’s traditional proj- ect delivery phases, from project planning and preliminary engineering through construction completion and possibly beyond to maintenance and asset management; • Any natural progression or transition from more traditional contracts and specifications that should precede the decision to use performance specifications (i.e., a learning curve to attune both the agency and industry to a new business model); and • General mechanics of administering performance contracts (e.g., the procurement process and document and database management). The team also assessed the potential value of using performance specifications to promote innovation, reduce inspection costs, enhance quality, and accelerate construction. The assess- ment generally supported the conclusion that using performance specifications will add value to a project. However, the value added is contingent on project objectives, project type and charac- teristics, degree of flexibility extended to the contractor to meet performance objectives, and the type of project delivery system used. These considerations were incorporated into a project selec- tion process included in the implementation guidelines.

4Two demonstration projects were undertaken with the Missouri Department of Transporta- tion (Missouri DOT) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (Virginia DOT) to imple- ment performance specifications for pavement foundations and bridge decks, respectively. The team also advised the Louisiana Transportation Research Council (LTRC) on the development of geotechnical and pavement performance specifications and data collection for an ongoing Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (Louisiana DOTD) US-90 Frontage Roads demonstration project. Important lessons learned from these demonstrations were incor- porated into both the implementation guidelines and the guide specifications, as applicable, to provide agencies with the tools needed to develop and successfully implement performance specifications. Research Products The R07 team developed guide performance specifications and associated implementation guidelines to help support the application of performance specifications across a wide range of work and projects. Performance Specifications To help agencies develop and implement performance specifications, the team drafted a set of AASHTO-formatted guide specifications to be used by engineers and specifiers as a template for developing project-specific performance specifications for various topic areas. Performance specifications were developed in the areas of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) and portland cement con- crete (PCC) pavement, concrete bridge decks, geotechnical application areas, work zone traffic control, and quality management. The specifications include commentary to help specifiers select performance parameters and performance measurement strategies (test methods, sampling plans, target values, pay adjustment mechanisms) that best align with the project’s goals and the capabilities of the agency and local industry. The specifications emphasize the use—to the extent possible—of new and emerging nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques that facilitate rapid renewal and performance param- eters that validate mechanistic models of design. As applicable, the team tailored the guide specifications to specific delivery approaches (design- bid-build, design-build, warranty, and design-build-operate-maintain). The chosen approach can significantly affect how much performance risk can be placed on the private sector. Thus the team factored in both possible changes to traditional roles and responsibilities with respect to design, quality management, and postconstruction maintenance, and the level at which performance parameters may be set. If properly implemented, the guide specifications will provide agencies with a useful tool to motivate and empower the private sector to offer innovative solutions to save time, minimize disruption, and achieve long life in the interest of rapid renewal. Implementation Guidelines To accompany the guide specifications, the team also prepared a two-volume set of implementa- tion guidelines. Strategies for Implementing Performance Specifications: Guide for Executives and Project Manag- ers provides a broad overview of the benefits and challenges associated with implementing per- formance specifications. It provides recommendations on project selection criteria, procurement and project delivery options, industry and legal considerations, and the various cultural and organizational changes needed to support the implementation of performance specifications. Framework for Developing Performance Specifications: Guide for Specification Writers presents a flexible framework for assessing whether performance specifying is a viable option for a particular

5project or project element. If it is, this volume explains how performance specifications can be developed and used to achieve project-specific goals and satisfy user needs. In addition to provid- ing a step-by-step “how to” guide for developing performance specifications, the document also contains guidance on application areas (e.g., pavements, bridge decks, earthworks, and work zones) found to have the greatest need or potential for performance specifying. Specifiers may use this volume alone or in conjunction with the guide specifications to develop and tailor project- specific performance specifications. Recommendations for Future Activities and Implementation The team has identified potential follow-on activities that would help move the products of this research effort into practice. These activities include demonstration projects, outreach and train- ing, continued specification development, and automated tools for specification development. Demonstration Projects Demonstration projects are a proven tool for validating and fine-tuning new procedures, specifica- tions, or contracting practices resulting from research. According to the representatives of the various departments of transportation who participated in specification vetting workshops, significant opportunities remain for additional demonstrations of performance specifications. Performance specifications could be further validated by conducting long-term postconstruc- tion performance monitoring to assess the relative value of performance specifications. Demon- stration of the long-term performance outcomes for warranty and maintenance specifications that include postconstruction performance requirements would be particularly useful. Suitable project types for this scenario would likely involve pavement applications but could also include bridge or structural elements with long-term performance evaluations (i.e., health monitoring). Outreach and Training Before initiating the SHRP 2 R07 project, FHWA sponsored an expert technical group (ETG) with representatives from AASHTO, industry, and academia to provide guidance and outreach for the continued development of performance specifications, with particular focus on performance– related specifications (PRS) for rigid and flexible pavements. The research team sees a need to reestablish a performance specification ETG to provide continued support, training, and guidance for implementation of the performance specifications developed under the R07 project and to identify additional performance specifications to test and implement. The ETG’s activities could potentially include assisting with the adoption of selected performance specifications as AASHTO guide specifications or test methods through additional vetting and discussions with AASHTO subcommittees. The ETG could also sponsor training (webinars and presentations), build the business case, and provide institutional support within AASHTO agencies for the use of perfor- mance specifications. It could also address industry concerns related to risk allocation, insurance and bonding, and subcontractor relationships. Continued Specification Development Continued performance specification development would be beneficial for products not addressed by the R07 research. For pavements, advancement is needed in the areas of NDT methods and acceptance criteria that more directly relate to performance (e.g., mechanistic-based properties). Additional testing and demonstrations of PRS are under way for pavements (i.e., FHWA- sponsored demonstrations using PaveSpec for PCC and predictive models for HMA). For bridges, performance specifications can be developed for structural elements (e.g., piers, beams, or whole

6bridge performance); and performance criteria are needed for field acceptance of modular bridge components or innovative bridge technology (e.g., fiber-reinforced polymer composite bridges). Lastly, health monitoring of long-term bridge performance needs further development to address data management and evaluation standards. Geotechnical performance specifications for ground improvement and pavement founda- tions need further development to establish testing and acceptance criteria based on mechanistic properties such as stiffness. For work zone traffic control, further development is needed in the areas of performance-monitoring technology, standardization of methods to calculate incentives and disincentives, data management, and independent verification. Lastly, performance specifi- cations can be developed for additional highway construction elements (e.g., lighting, signals, signage, pavement markings, guardrails, and landscaping). A Web-Based Specification Development Tool Consistent with current agency trends toward developing and maintaining web-based specifica- tions, an automated tool could help specification writers develop performance specifications for particular applications. The tool could be database driven with standard language and templates for different types of product specifications. The tool could guide the specification writer through steps or decision points with various options to consider depending on the project scope and characteristics. The level of effort needed to develop such a tool would depend in part on the product areas and types of performance specifications to be considered. One possible approach would be to develop the tool incrementally, focusing on a specific product area (e.g., pavements) and developing a beta version for testing. The beta version should be compatible or work in con- junction with other web-based specification development tools, for example, SpecRisk Quality Assurance Specification Development and PaveSpec software tools.