Practical Highway Design Solutions (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.

86 Appendix J example of Charter for Oregon dOT CHARTER (Sample 1) OR206 Deschutes River Bridge November 15, 2009 • Charter is assigned by: Gary Farnsworth (Central Area Manager), Sam Wilkins ( District 9 Manager), and Bert Hartman (Bridge Program Unit Manager); to: Mike Darling (Project Leader) • Brief, general description of the Project Assignment: Provide a construction project on highway OR206 at the Deschutes River Bridge No. 00332, that will strengthen the structure such that load limits will be removed. The charge includes delivery of this project within the specified budget, with construction to occur in the 2012 construction season, while at the same time adhering to the mobility and delay commitments that have been made to the freight industry and traveling public with regards to this section of highway. • Problem Description: The bridge is currently load rated. And although the average daily traffic using this structure is low, the bridge is part of a route designated as an alternate route for interstate I-84 during emergency situations. Strengthening the structure so that there are no load limits remaining will maintain and enhance mobility by allowing unrestricted use during emergency situations. Resolving this problem is important, because it’s our responsibility to: 1. Maintain and enhance mobility by allowing unrestricted use during emergency events as an alternative to interstate highway I-84. 2. Protect assets by providing maintenance and retrofits. This includes life-cycle cost-benefit and environmental stewardship and sustainability as high priorities. 3. Be responsive to local/regional economic and livability needs and interests that create long term benefits for both ODOT and the affected area. This section of highway OR206 is used for recreation, and the bridge is used as an angling platform. So, for example, with this project, delay in addressing the existing and near-term deteriorating bridge condition beyond 2012 will result in a decrease in safety for the traveling public, an increase in maintenance and life-cycle costs. 4. Maintain construction-related traffic mobility as a top priority commitment by ODOT to the trucking industry, as part of the OTIA III program, and as part of ODOT’s support to Oregon’s economy.

87 Sample 1: p 2 • All or any expectations and outcomes: The priority order of the project deliverables are as follows: 1. Strengthen the bridge superstructure 2. Resurface the bridge deck 3. Reconstruct guardrail approaches 4. Upgrade bridge railing 5. Perform seismic upgrades Involvement and informed consent with identified stakeholders such as ODOT Bridge Engineering, ODOT maintenance, Wasco County, Sherman County, Emergency Services, Statewide Mobility Committee, Columbia River Gorge commission, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and local businesses, for such items as bridge design, safety improvements, construction staging, and construction related traffic and freight mobility. On-time delivery into construction for 2012 construction season, meeting at least the top project scope priorities, within budget (at reasonable cost). Satisfied maintenance, bridge, and construction staff (and contractor) regarding maintainability and constructability of the design / contract documents, including the project development to construction hand-off process. • All parameters (conditions, boundaries, constraints, design criteria) r elevant to the effort: Construction is expected to be completed within existing right-of-way, and completed within the timeframe noted above. There are no other expectations for bridge design outside of current ODOT guidelines. STIP assigned PE and CN Budget is $2.948 million of STP funds. • Clearly described decision-making authority boundaries and flexibilities between the Sponsor(s) and the PL/Team: Mike is authorized to make the following decisions within the Project Team structure: 1. Setting and changing project oversight and involvement expectations: Team operating guidelines (covenants) and dynamics (e.g., frequency of meetings), work-flow and timing, and other tools to implement successful project delivery within the above expectations. 2. Strategies to work with other internal and external stakeholders, although Sam Wilkins and Gary Farnsworth will be particularly interested in strategies for Wasco County, Sherman County, the adjacent business and property owners, emergency services, and Statewide Mobility Team. 3. Technical /design decisions within the above expectations and within established ODOT technical business practices (e.g., regulatory, professional registration).

88 Sample 1: p 3 Specific Project decision-making authorities are as follows: 1. All project scope decisions/changes: ODOT Region 4 Management Team, with concurrence by the Bridge Program Manager. 2. Project Budget decisions: Area Manager (up to $250,000), Region 4 Project Delivery, Management Team (up to $500,000), Region 4 Management Team (over $500,000) for Region 4 funding, with concurrence by the Bridge Program Manager. 3. Project Schedule decisions: Area Manager (up to 90 days, within FFY), Region 4 Project Delivery Management Team (beyond 90 days, within FFY), Region 4 Mgt Team (beyond FFY) with concurrence by the Bridge Program Manager. 4. Design Acceptance: Area Manager, Tech Center Manager. • Method by which the Sponsor(s) PL/PM/Team will communicate with and support each other: Routine verbal communication between Mike Darling (Project Leader) and Sam Wilkins, Gary Farnsworth and Project Team members as Mike and Sam see are needed. Routine informational emails, draft Change Requests, email/letter cc’s on correspondence with stakeholders, any project highlight or change discussions at PDMT, etc. Meeting opportunities within stakeholder/citizen participation strategies (e.g., public meetings), or invitations by the Team to join a Team Meeting. The sponsors will provide support to Mike and the Team with other Region 4 Management Team members, Statewide Mobility Team, other stakeholders, and in Tech Services, etc. • Perspectives and expectations on how to go about the work: Incorporate into initial team meetings review of the current Region 4 Design Acceptance Checklist, Region Design Acceptance Memo template, the Office of Preletting’s current PS&E submittal forms, and at least Chapter 2 of the Highway Mobility Operations Manual for work planning and assignment purposes. Mike will also ensure the following are developed, maintained, and updated with the Project Team throughout project development: a. Project Team Agreement* b. Traffic Management Plan (TMP) c. Project Information Paper (PIP) d. Public Involvement Plan which integrates with the TMP and schedule e. Cost-budget status spreadsheet f. Prospectus consistent with items II and III above, MS Project Schedule (w/staff resources), all other Operational Notice (e.g., PD-02, PD-03) deliverables. Apply the Region 4 Change Request tool for communication and justification of scope, schedule, and budget changes.

89 Sample 1: p 4 • Names, roles and responsibilities of all team members, management sponsors, etc: Region 4 Tech Center (through Tech Center Manager Jon Heacock), The Dalles Construction Office and District 9 staff for oversight, production, decision-making, and review support as needed. Support from Rex Holloway (Community Liaison) and Peter Murphy (Public Information Officer) as needed. Current staff assignments include: • Fred Gomez will serve as Roadway Designer/Engineer of Record • Robert Tovar (Region 1 Structural Design Engineer) • Alan Hart (Roadway/Specifications Engineer) • Curtis Ehlers (Senior Engineering Geologist) • Traffic Operations Rep (Dave Foster) • Teresa Brasfield (Region Environmental Coordinator) • Greg Saurbier or Joseph Rodriguez(Roadway Drafter) • Terry Pistole (Right of Way) • Jim Bryant (Planning) • Dan Serpico (Access Management) • Signature Blocks: Gary Farnsworth (Area Manager) Sam Wilkins (District 9 Manager) Bert Hartman (Bridge Program Unit Manager) Mike Darling (Interim Project Leader) *Each Project Charter should also be supplemented by a Project Team Agreement. Created by the Project Team, such an Agreement will provide the operating guidelines to support successful delivery on the Charter, such as: encouraged group behaviors and norms, meeting frequency, conflict strategies, and roles of the team. Working through this will help the team address problems in advance. The Agreement should address the following questions the team members should be asking themselves as they form and interact: 1. Are we good at decision-making (what decision-making processes will be used, e.g., consulting, voting, consensus, PLUS)? 2. Do we understand and agree with authorities, roles, responsibilities, and expectations? 3. Do we do a good job documenting who does what, by when, and the follow-up? 4. Do we hold one another accountable, and are we accountable to each other? 5. Do we have good, healthy communication with each other during meetings, and day-to-day? 6. Do we know how to effectively communicate with management sponsors, and our potentially affected interests (internal and external customers)?