Alternative Bidding

Print this Article | Send to Colleague

If time permits during my travels, I try to find the opportunity to visit with city and county engineering staffs as well as consulting engineering firms to discuss the latest information in our industry. To aid myself in this effort I use TxAPA’s Educational Tool Kit which you are hopefully familiar with already. If not, please give me a call and I would be glad to send you a copy of the tool kit. Other times I am called upon to meet with city or county engineering staffs or consulting engineering firms at the request of one of TxAPA’s members due to a specific concern or issue. Recently I met with two entities at the request of two different members to discuss alternate bidding and pavement types. Both entities were looking for a way to stretch their money by trying to ensure that they received the best pavement product for their dollar. In one case Entity A was questioning whether or not they should let a large roadway project as a rigid pavement project. This would be the first rigid pavement project let by Entity A. Entity B felt that the solution could be found by letting projects with two options, one flexible and one rigid. I dropped by and visited with both entities to help provide some advice and guidance.

In the case of Entity A, I pointed out that rather than let a project strictly as a rigid pavement project they should at least let it as an alternate bid project. They were obviously familiar and had a lot of experience with flexible pavements so I helped them to realize that those pavements had done well for them historically and can continue to do well for them into the future. In order to show them how a state entity handles this I shared with them TxDOT’s "Policy for Alternate Pavement Design for New Construction and Total Reconstruction" dated November 19, 2009. This document lays out how TxDOT should currently be pursuing alternate pavement designs for projects similar to the project they were considering.

In the case of Entity B (who was using an alternate bid process), it was their design process and analysis of the bids for the projects that we needed to discuss. I shared with them TxDOT’s policy as discussed above and several documents that can be found on the Asphalt Pavement Alliance (APA) website (http://asphaltroads.org) such as "Pavement Type Selection," "Keys to a Successful Alternate Bidding Process," "Perpetual Asphalt Pavements" and "Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Express." I shared these same documents with Entity A.

All of the above documents use unbiased principles recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), information from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and are based on publications from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). As a brief summary of the information I shared with them, the following checklist as provided in the APA document entitled "Keys to a Successful Alternate Bidding Process" lays it out best:

WHEN AGENCY COSTS ONLY ARE CONSIDERED:

• Pavement designs should be equivalent (note: I recommend at least a 30-year design life). Separate performance periods for new construction and rehabilitation activities should be used.
  
• Rehabilitation strategies should reflect past activities.
  Material costs should represent agency’s present-day costs on projects of similar scope and quantities over a period of time.
  
• Analysis period for pavement types should be equal and within a range of 35 to 50 years (note: I recommend at least a 40-year analysis period and using the LCCA tools as found on the APA website since they use unbiased principles from FHWA and AASHTO).
  
• Real discount rate should be selected from the White House Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94.

WHEN USER DELAY COSTS ARE CONSIDERED:

• Construction duration should represent quantity of work completed in a typical work day (note: this duration include additional days for any required curing periods).
  
• Off-peak hours should be considered in user delay calculations.

After my visits, both entities stated that they were going to rethink their current processes and/or plans and that they were going to look more heavily into the thoughts, ideas and materials that I provided to them.

Note that the materials I mention above are not currently part of TxAPA’s Educational Tool Kit, but we will start adding some of them to future tool kits. If you need a copy of these handouts or want me to drop by and help you in your area just give me a call and I will be glad to help out.