Category:Safe and Sound
The Missouri Department of Transportation's Safe & Sound Bridge Improvement Program was a two-phase program to improve 802 of the state’s lowest-rated bridges by Oct. 31, 2014.
|Best Practices for Bridge Construction on the Safe and Sound Design-Build Project, 2012|
Some 248 bridges were identified for rehabilitation, and many of those were already under construction. They were being put out for bid in groups according to location, type or size to expedite the design and construction process.
The other 554 bridges were scheduled for replacement and were packaged in a single Design-Build contract. KTU Constructors completed construction by Dec. 31, 2013.
Safe and Sound Modified-Design-Bid-Build Guidelines were presented in this article.
- 1 General Information
- 2 Budget
- 3 Public Involvement
- 4 Right of Way
- 5 Environmental/Cultural Clearances
- 6 FHWA Oversight
- 7 Safety Appurtenances
- 8 Design Exceptions
- 9 Field Inspection
- 10 Pavements and Depth Transitions
- 11 Pavement Markings
- 12 Permanent Signing
- 13 Traffic Control Plans
- 14 Drainage at Bridge Ends
- 15 Utilities
- 16 Contracting Issues
- 17 Electronic Plans and Supporting Documentation Submittals
- 18 Plans Development
- 19 Schedule
- Safe and Sound’s (SAS) direction was to move forward with 248 bridges as Modified-Design-Bid-Build (MDBB) and 554 bridges as Design-Build.
- We had a public commitment to have 100 of the 248 bridges under contract/construction by Spring 2009.
- The design-build package that includes 554 bridges was awarded to KTU Constructors.
- The 248 bridges under the MDBB portion had bridges grouped by type, size and location to accelerate construction schedules. Bridges may have been grouped across district lines.
- The 100 "quick start" bridges were those getting new superstructures or redecking or rehabilitation only.
- The remaining 148 bridges on the MDBB could have consist of: new superstructures, redecking, rehabilitation or replacement.
- Issued Bonds to finance the project.
- $50 Million/Year Bond Payment based on current interest rates that was approximately $700,000,000 (includes PE, CE, incidentals, contingency, R/W, utilities) for all 802 bridges.
- The Budget for MDBB was provided by SAS.
- Prior approval was required from SAS Team to add scope using district funding above the current designated project budget.
- Performance Plus WAS NOT implemented for design (since they didn’t set the estimate) but WAS implemented for construction based on award vs. final construction.
- PRACTICAL DESIGN!
|Safe and Sound Bridge, Boone County|
- Bob Brendel sent out a package of information via email on 10-7-08.
- Districts role in PI for the Design Build bridges was very similar to that of the MDBB bridges. KTU supplied technical design and construction operations for MoDOT to relay to the public.
Right of Way
- Was for 100 "quick start" bridges – MINIMIZE ROW or easements.
- Was for remaining 148 bridges – should be minimal but might have included ROW and/or easements which require a ROW clearance.
- The NEPA Classification for each SAS Bridge Project was determined and was in ProjectWise at the following location:
- pwname://MoDOT Design-Build/Documents/Safe and Sound/District Coordinators/Central Office/BIP Database/BIP Database Revised 04 Jun 2008.mdb
Each district had a select few individuals (District SAS Coordinator, Project Managers etc.) that had access to this database.
- The above referenced database had a column labeled CE Category. If this column was left blank it was intended that the project was a CE with no conditions, but if a number were listed in this column, reference the following PDF file for definitions:
- pwname://MoDOT Design-Build/Documents/Safe and Sound/District Coordinators/Central Office/BIP Database/EnironmentalInformationTableHeadingDefinitions.pdf
- If a project bridge had conditions, meaning a number listed in the CE Category column in the above-mentioned database, Buck Brooks with the Environmental Section was to be contacted for further guidance.
- Most SAS Bridge Projects had the NEPA classification – Categorical Exclusion (CE), but some were classified as a conditional CE. This was the most common condition so long as you stayed within existing right-of-way, but the district needed to check the list to determine the exact classification.
- The SAS Team and the Environmental Section worked with the Project Managers to review the screening information and assisted with specific requirements and/or permit issues for individual bridges.
- Asbestos and lead paint test results were also present within the informational documents folder, within the subfolder for each bridge.
- Specific issues were also noted in the Environmental Approvals document found in ProjectWise at the following location:
- pwname://MoDOT Design-Build/Documents/Safe and Sound/District Coordinators/Central Office/BIP Environmental Documents/Environmental Approval 08 20 08.doc
- The district was to submit a Request for Environmental Services (RES) for each Bridge package to the Environmental Unit for review.
- The Federal Highway Administration reviewed plans and provided comments, however they were not requiring their approval to proceed with design/construction of these bridges, once STIP programming/funding updates were provided. The SAS team disseminated information based on comments received.
- SAS Team produced a spreadsheet that indicated whether the bridge ends needed guardrail. This file was located in ProjectWise at the following location:
- pwname://MoDOT Design-Build/Documents/Safe and Sound/District Coordinators/Central Office/BIP Database/No_Guardrail_per_EPG.pdf
- If the spreadsheet indicated "no" in guardrail column, that meant according to the EPG no guardrail was required at the bridge ends. If the spreadsheet indicated "yes" or was blank in the guardrail column, that meant guardrail was SAS MDBB General Guidelines required per MoDOT policy. Design exceptions might have been pursued by districts to eliminate approach guardrail.
- If approach guardrail was used for bridge ends, districts were to design the appropriate length of need with an approved crashworthy end treatment.
- When crashworthy end treatments were used, the grading requirements (including taper) wwere part of the pay item for the end treatment. See Standard Plan 606.00
- Guardrail was to be tapered away from the roadway (1’) to avoid public perception that the bridge was narrower than it was and to avoid snow plow damage. Standard Plan 606.00 Grading Limits for Type A Non-Flared Offset Crashworthy End Terminal was to be used.
- For grading between the Crashworthy end terminal and the bridge wing, "furnishing and placing rock fill" or "embankment in place" for the additional fill material needed behind the guardrail was to be used.
- If there was not enough room for placing rock fill or embankment in place behind the end terminal with in existing ROW, a design exception was to be considered.
- If the Type A guardrail (Bridge Anchor, Transition, CET) would not fit due to constraints such as an entrance close to the bridge end, a Type C CET was allowable. The Type C CET’s were approximately 18’ to 21’ long and did not require a transition or bridge anchor section and could be bolted directly to the bridge barrier.
- Delineators (if no guardrail end treatment were used)
- 3 channel post delineator signs for each bridge end as pay items were to be included in the contract.
- All design exceptions required signatures by district and the SAS Team.
- The Design Exception Form had a place for the SAS Team’s signature.
- FHWA was to have approved design exceptions on ALL interstate bridges (on or over the interstate) regardless of the dollar amount. FHWA was not to have approved design exceptions on any other routes but the SAS team was to send FHWA a courtesy copy of the design exceptions.
- MoDOT district staff were responsible for all construction inspection on the SAS bridges.
- Construction staff should not have noticed any difference in the 248 MDBB bridges with exception of coordinating traffic control with the Maintenance Division.
- The 554 design-build bridges were to have very similar inspections as normal jobs. There were some differences as there are no pay items. Payments were to be made on a completion schedule basis.
Pavements and Depth Transitions
- The bridge approach slab (bridge pay item) was to be used on Major Routes only.
- The modified bridge approach slab (roadway pay item) was used on Minor Roads with concrete pavement. See Bridge Approach Slabs for more information.
- The approach pavement (not to be confused with the Bridge Approach Slab) for re-deck and superstructure replacement jobs was to be optional pavement. All Interstate and Major Routes needed a pavement type recommendation from the Pavement Team. For Minor Routes, the optional pavement consisted of the contractor’s option of hot mix, cold mix, or concrete with details as shown in the special sheet Pavement Transitions at Bridge Ends. There had been several maintenance issues with non-reinforced concrete that was used as the approach pavement; therefore reinforced concrete was used in this case.
- Bridge Re-deck Projects and Superstructure Replacement Projects:
- If the depth transition was GREATER than 6” vertically, then the district was to compute all corresponding quantities, list them on the quantity sheets and each item were to be paid for by contract unit prices. Any pavement for a width transition was also to have been computed and listed in the quantity sheets. The Pavement at Bridge Approaches JSP and Pavement Transition at Bridge Ends Special Sheet were not to have been used for these cases.
- If the depth transition was LESS than 6” vertically, then the district was to put the new special sheet titled Pavement Transition at Bridge Ends in the plans and the district to have used the JSP titled Pavement at Bridge Approaches.
- Pavement replacement on existing grade (new bridge elevation = old bridge elevation) was to be considered no direct pay (Minimal pavement work was anticipated in these cases).
- Pavement replacement/repair and any corresponding incidental work on SAS jobs with vertical depth transitions up to 6”, was to have been paid for by using the following pay item: 401-99.01 Misc Pavement, LUMP SUM.
- While the use of the JSP and Special Sheet listed above were strongly encouraged, in any case that the district felt obligated to fully design the pavement transitions in lieu of using the special sheet and JSP, they were allowed to do so. If the district chose this route, they were to be sure to list the pavement as optional and the concrete option was to be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars (lat. & long.) 12 in. O.C. at mid-depth.
- Districts were to verify if the widening/width transitions at the bridge ends required significant earthwork to the point where ditch grades and/or hydraulics were affected. In this case, the district was to compute all corresponding quantities, list them on the quantity sheets and each item to be paid for by contract unit prices. District Designers were to discuss this information with the assigned PM and District SAS Coordinator to verify if a full design were warranted.
- Bridge Replacements Projects
- SAS Team to set bridge widths
- Pavement depth transitions were to be coordinated with SAS Team.
- Exact bridge widths were to have been obtained from the Bridge Division.
- MoDOT forces striped most SAS projects.
- Temporary raised pavement markers (temporary tabs) were included as a part of the contract, but could have been under-run later depending on weather and coordination with district striping crews.
- Appropriate temporary raised pavement markers or permanent striping needed to be in place before the road was opened to traffic.
- Permanent striping for divided highway and interstate projects was to be included as part of the contract.
- Any permanent signing required will be completed by MoDOT forces and will not be included in the contracts, except for the delineator signs at the bridge ends that do not require guardrail.
- All signed detours on road closures needed signing/traffic control sheets drafted and sent to the appropriate Maintenance shed that was to install the signs. Copies of these signing plans were to be sent to district Safe and Sound Coordinators so these signs could be ordered in advance of construction. The shipment of the signs could take anywhere from 4 to 6 weeks.
- MoDOT Maintenance forces were ONLY to install all traffic control devices for all Modified Design Bid Build and Design Build road closures. The contractor installed all traffic control devices for SAS jobs that were staged construction or jobs that used a temporary crossover.
- The SAS Team asked the districts to prepare the detour signing sheets for the Design Build bridges to give to the Maintenance sheds along with the detours for the Modified Design Bid Build bridges. Along with that, the SAS Team asked the districts to prepare a detour (even if the closure was not to be signed) in ArcMap to be placed on the Safe and Sound webmap.
- For bridges with less than 400 AADT, the detour route DID NOT need to be signed unless the detour was long or complex; district were to make final determination.
- NO detour was to be be signed on a city or county route.
- Concrete barriers were not be used to close a road; only Type 3 barricades and channelizers were used.
- The 2 ft. x 2 ft. Safe and Sound signs could have been permanently removed after the road was closed for bridge construction.
- SAS had its own Point of Presence (POP) signs. The smaller 3 ft. x 4 ft. POP sign was used on Minor Routes and the larger 8 ft. x 4 ft. POP sign used on Major Routes/Divided Highways. This sign looked very similar to the standard POP sign but had the SAS logo on it. The POP signs were installed after contract award and remained in place for 3 to 6 months after bridge was opened to traffic. A "completed as promised" sticker was installed after bridge was opened to traffic.
Road Closures were listed as DETOUR under the MOT (maintenance of traffic) column on the spreadsheet located in ProjectWise at the following location:
- pwname://MoDOT Design-Build/Documents/Safe and Sound/District Coordinators/Central Office/BIP Database/MOT.pdf
- District prepared detour/road closure traffic control plan sheets to give to MoDOT Maintenance forces and to be placed in the plans as "For Information Only". Maintenance may have wanted a quantity sheet, but no quantities were needed to be included in the plans as there were no pay items in the contract for traffic control.
- The SAS Point of Presence sign were installed for each project. These signs were in addition to the SAS signs (2 ft. x 2 ft.) that were being installed at each site and for road closures projects. These signs were installed by MoDOT forces when the traffic control was a road closure.
Projects were listed as STAGED under the MOT column on the spreadsheet located in ProjectWise at the following location:
- pwname://MoDOT Design-Build/Documents/Safe and Sound/District Coordinators/Central Office/BIP Database/MOT.pdf
- All projects with staged traffic control required the district to prepare temporary traffic control plans to be incorporated into the final plans and appropriate traffic control pay items were part of the contract.
- The contractor installed, maintained and removed all traffic control devices.
- The SAS Point of Presence sign were installed for each project by the contractor, when the traffic control was listed as staged construction or for jobs that used a temporary crossover. Pay items of furnished by Commission and install by contractor were included in the contracts.
Temporary Traffic Control
Temporary traffic control was permitted to have been required for bridge replacements such as traffic control under a bridge deck that was being replaced. If temporary traffic control was required and was dependent on the contractor’s schedule it was to be included in the contract.
- All projects with temporary traffic control dependent on the contractor’s schedule required the district to prepare temporary traffic control plans to be incorporated into the final plans and appropriate traffic control pay items were to be part of the contract.
- The contractor installed all temporary traffic control devices.
Transportation Management Plans (TMP)
Transportation Management Plans consisted of strategies to manage the work zone impacts of a project. The TMP was a narrative that was submitted to FHWA for review.
- See Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy - Transportation Management Plan for TMP Guidance.
- TMP were only required on projects that had a significant impact on roadway users. Project were considered significant by meeting one or more of the critieria in Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy - Significant Projects.
Drainage at Bridge Ends
- Flume Drain Special Sheet
- Bridge had MODIFIED BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
- Flume Drain w/ app slab special sheet was used.
- Sheet location:
- pwname://MoDOT/Documents/CADD_Standards/Standard Plans for Highway Construction/Special Sheets/SAS_Flume_w_Approach_Slab.dgn
- Bridge had FULL DEPTH BRIDGE APPPROACH SLAB
- The special sheet was not used; this bridge had drain basins if it had a full depth bridge approach slab.
- Bridge had NO BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB (just approach pavement)
- Flume Drain w/o app slab special sheet was to be used.
- Sheet location:
- pwname://MoDOT/Documents/CADD_Standards/Standard Plans for Highway Construction/Special Sheets/SAS_Flume_wo_Approach_Slab.dgn
- Major impacts or adjustments were not anticipated.
- Utility clearance letters were required along with the utility JSP. These were provided by the District Utility Engineers and placed in ProjectWise under the appropriate location.
- Incentive/disincentive clauses were not anticipated. Required SAS Team preapproval if used.
- Liquidated Damages: All SAS bridges that had more than 5000 AADT, the district contacted the Planning Division for the Road User Cost associated with them; for all other SAS bridge projects, Central Office determined and inserted the liquidated damage into the JSPs.
- Some of the SAS projects might have been setup as Required Combination or Permitted, as determined by Central Office, but most had several bridges in a single job number.
Electronic Plans and Supporting Documentation Submittals
- Submittal and processing of all 248 SAS bridges PS&E was completed using ProjectWise, the same way as all other STIP projects. This allowed CO to send plans directly to MoDOT's Online Plans Room through ProjectWise.
- All full size pdf files were saved under the Contract Plans – Job No. Folder in ProjectWise. NOTE: This was the same procedure as a normal STIP job. The completed PDF’s were not saved under the MoDOT Design-Build Tab or the MoDOT Safe and Sound MDBB tab in ProjectWise. The files were saved to the contract plans folder in the appropriate location.
- All supporting documentation were saved under the Specs & Estimates Folder – Job No. Folder. This was the same procedure as a normal STIP job. All environmental permits/letters, asbestos surveys and inspections reports were saved to the Specs & Estimates folder. The Bridge Memorandum was saved to the Specs & Estimates folder for each bridge. The review section used this memorandum to verify the change in elevation from the existing bridge to the new bridge in order to determine if the pay items was lump sum, contract unit price for each item or no direct pay.
- If a project only had one bridge, the estimate was set up as normal. If a project contained multiple bridges, each bridge structure had a separate Roadway Section and Bridge Section. Section 01 was used for the first Roadway Section, and Section 50 through 69 for each Roadway Section following (bridges were in alphanumeric order by bridge number). The Bridge Division used Sections 70 through 99. Bidding and Contract Services manually changed the Section/Category number in PES to match the example attached in the below e-mail. The projects were set up this way so we had the ability to track the total funding for each structure. See the example estimate and set of plans located in ProjectWise at the following location:
- pwname://MoDOT Design-Build/Documents/Safe and Sound/District Coordinators/Central Office/Quick Start
- ALL plan sheets were signed/sealed electronically by a Project Manager.
- A transmittal letter was submitted with the normal information as a regular STIP job along with the following:
- Number Calendar Days for each structure
- Overall project completion date
- An email was sent to firstname.lastname@example.org when the plans were complete and stored in ProjectWise.
Roadway Job Special Provisions (JSPs)
The district was responsible for completing the Roadway JSPs for the SAS bridges and the Bridge Division responsible for completing the Bridge JSPs. Each responsible party was required to
- Place a copy of the JSPs into the appropriate location in ProjectWise, which was the same process as a normal STIP job.
- Place the job number, route and county at the upper right hand corner of each sheet.
- Place page numbers in the center at the bottom of each page. (The title sheet was not numbered.)
- District Project Managers were responsible for signing/sealing the Roadway JSPs and the Bridge Project Manager responsible for signing/sealing the Bridge JSPs.
- The JSP’s word document was placed in ProjectWise under the Job Number – Specs & Estimates folder. If the specs and estimates folder was not present, a Project Manager created it.
- The following standard Job Special Provisions were used: This standard boiler plate JSP document was found in the JSP Database under Safe and Sound Roadway Job Special Provisions Template. Natalie Roark was contacted for further information.
- General – Federal
- Work Zone Traffic Management Plan
- Project Contact for Contractor/Bidder Questions **The District Project Managers was used as the contact**
- Emergency Provisions and Incident Management
- Utilities **District Utilities Engineer to provide**
- Liquidated Damages (LD) Specified for Closure Time and Completion Date – Calendar Days with associated LDs for road closure time. Calendar Days to be provided by district and Central Office inserted the LDs for the project (see Liquidated Damages bullet under Contracting Issues above). Work Day Study (based upon CALENDAR DAYS) was to be provided by district with Bridge Work Day Study incorporated.
- Liquidated Damages for Winter Months **This was ONLY used for jobs with a November or December completion date.**
- Supplemental Revisions
- Pavement at Bridge Approaches. This was not used on jobs that had full depth bridge approach slabs.
- Flume Drain – New JSP as of August 1, 2009.
Roadway plans were prepared by each district.
- ALL signed and sealed PDF sheets were placed in the contract plans folders in ProjectWise under the job number. All supporting documentation were placed under the specs & estimates folder similar to a normal STIP job.
- ALL plan sheets incorporated new sheet border.
- Title Sheet – All bridge numbers were listed on the title sheet that were included in the package. The SAS logo was on the bridge plans but not included in the roadway portion.
- 2B Sheets
- Removal of Improvements - The district determined whether to include any sign and or striping removal in contract.
- Mobilization – This was included on each project.
- Typical Section Sheets – Existing and new bridge widths were shown
- Plan & Profiles Sheets – Only on necessary jobs. Some projects only required a Plan Sheet without a profile.
- ROW Plans – If necessary; most SAS bridges did NOT require new ROW.
- Reference Point & Coordinate Points Sheets – as necessary.
- Special Sheets – as necessary
- Traffic Control Sheets – see above section titled Traffic Control.
- Erosion Control Sheets – completed as necessary.
- Lighting & Signal Sheets – very limited; SAS Team was contacted for any questions.
- Signing – very limited; SAS Team was contacted for any questions.
- Pavement Marking Sheets - see pavement marking section of this document.
- Bridge Drawings – ALL bridge numbers were included here.
- Cross Sections – Might have been needed in areas of guardrail widening if Lump Sum pay items were not used.
Bridge plans were prepared by CO Bridge Division or Consultant where necessary.
- ALL bridge plans were signed/sealed and submitted through ProjectWise, the same way as a normal STIP job.
- ALL bridge supporting documentation were submitted through ProjectWise, the same way as a normal STIP job.
- The schedule for submitting a SAS job to the Bidding and Contract Services Section in Design was the same as a regular STIP job from the May 09 Letting and moving forward. The PSE Due Dates were on the MoDOT internet.