Creating a successful bridge bundling program

Extra A Great Lakes Edition for the Region’s Transportation Professionals

Creating a successful bridge bundling program DOTs should consider this strategy to save money and deliver multiple projects more efficiently Bridge owners have long had to grapple with complex practical, political and financial factors when deciding how best to maintain, repair and replace bridges. What’s more, they’ve been constrained by federal, state or local transportation rules that linked bridge funding to highly prescriptive contracting, engineering and construction processes.

Given the increasing number of bridges that need immediate attention, bridge bundling is a proven delivery strategy any department of transportation (DOT) can implement. Consider:

Missouri had bridge work needs in all 114 counties, too many to address contract by contract. Bundling allowed the state to let a single design-build contract to replace 554 replacement bridges. The state grouped another 248 bridge repair projects by size, type and location and awarded them in modified design-bid-build contracts. Through bundling, Missouri delivered the Safe and Sound Program of 802 new or improved bridges in 3.5 years.

Using a public-private partnership agreement (P3), Pennsylvania has replaced 558 structurally deficient bridges statewide.

New York repaired or replaced more than 550 structurally deficient bridges using bridge bundling philosophy. The bridge bundles were grouped by region and bridge type, and have a 25-year maintenance commitment.

Bridge bundling allowed these states to make significant advances in motorist safety and regional mobility in a short time.

One Contract, Many Benefits With bridge bundling, owners realize design, construction, cost and schedule efficiencies. Like the assembly line employee who becomes faster and more proficient at performing a single and routine task, so too will bridge construction crews who take a single design or construction technique and build it multiple times.

Owners may receive more competitive bids as contractors hope to fill an entire construction season with one contract award.

Owners save in-house resources letting and managing a single contract. Contractors buy in bulk, increasing their purchasing power.

Additional advantages include improved mobilization and staging and an increased speed of project completion without sacrificing worksite safety. Coupling bundling and a design-build delivery method, an owner could see additional delivery speed of a program.

Four Steps Toward Successful Delivery When deciding whether to pursue a bridge bundling program, consider the following best practices:

1. Identify a program champion.

New programs and initiatives are challenging to start and even more difficult to develop and maintain. Identifying a program champion will help drive the technical and cultural changes necessary to launch and sustain the effort for the long haul. In some cases, complex statewide programs have enlisted multiple champions in regional and local areas to help coordinate between bridge networks with several owners and key stakeholders. These champions are united by a common goal or vision for the bridge bundling program. Successful program champions will be:

Supported by top agency leaders Passionate about the program’s mission and vision Trusted by key stakeholders Collaborative and engaging in their program approach

2. Invest in research.

For bridge bundling to be successful, owners must first take time to understand what it is they want to accomplish. Is it preservation? Rehabilitation? Full replacement? Or a combination of these? It is important for bridge owners to define long-term system and operational goals. Knowing the end goals is fundamental to creating the right bundling approach.

However, if, after research and discovery, an owner finds that the bridges to be addressed are very different, the owner may be better off tackling each bridge under a separate contract.

3. Group by similarity.

Bundling capitalizes on likenesses and shared features, but bundles don’t have to be huge to be effective. For example, bridges can be grouped by:

Corridor Location (county, district or region) River or creek crossings Structure type Geometry Environmental clearances

4. Engage with stakeholders.

Understanding what the impacted communities want is an important part of any successful project. This holds true for bridge bundling projects. Are citizens willing to endure a full closure and a detour in exchange for a shorter project delivery schedule? Or, do they want to continue using their normal route with reduced lanes in exchange for a longer project schedule? If the owner can replace multiple bridges along a corridor under the same detour, does the answer change? Can a region take more than one roadway closed in a single season or does a program need to span multiple season in that area? Is this is the only facility for emergency responders to be where they need to be with sufficient response times? These are only some of the questions that are important to ask during the development of a bundled bridge program, and the answer will change depending on the community.

Understanding the fundamentals of bridge bundling and applying best practices allow any owner to make significant strides in bringing its bridge inventory closer to a state of good repair quickly, and with limited resources.

Bridge Bundling in Practice: Michigan’s Pilot Program

A feasibility study launched in 2018 showed that by 2028 there would be a 75% increase in bridges projected to be in Serious or Critical condition if no proactive repair measures were taken. Preliminary screening, final screening and scoping of Michigan’s bridges were conducted in 2019 and 2020 to determine appropriate bridges for a pilot program.

As one of the program management consultant (PMC) support teams hired to assist MDOT in 2020, HNTB was charged with getting a bridge bundling pilot program underway. Bringing together more than 300 units of government who own bridges in Michigan was no easy feat. Additionally, the team had to meld everyone’s unique needs, approaches and dynamics into a single statewide strategy. The potential to save considerable time and money was attractive to all of the agencies and helped advance the value proposition to pursue bridge bundling.

The team has also developed a bottoms-up training and education approach for MDOT and local agencies about the value of asset management to prevent future bridge crises — preserving what you have first rather than waiting until replacement is required.

As part of the pilot program, MDOT, local owners and the PMC team established several specific project goals:

Michigan is facing an emerging crisis in its statewide bridge network with hundreds of local bridges either closed, load-restricted or rated in Serious or Critical condition.

Local agency owners began to prioritize more proactive rehabilitations after the FHWA gave approval for preventative maintenance and federal-aid funding through the “FAST Act” of 2016. However, this did not address the current needs of Michigan’s bridge network as approximately 400 bridges require full replacement.

In 2018 local bridge conditions became an area of focus for Michigan’s statewide Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC). A Bridge Bureau was established within the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and a MDOT project champion emerged to lead the initiative.

Reduce the number of Serious and Critical bridges statewide Create a collaborative model with participating agencies Engage with local DBE firms in meaningful roles Deliver a successful pilot program Promote the development of maintenance and lifecycle bridge asset management plans

Michigan’s bridge bundling pilot program was awarded in March 2021. Bids for the design-build pilot came within 2% of HNTB’s engineer’s estimate. It includes 19 superstructure bridge replacements, 14 agencies, 13 counties and two key cities throughout the state. The average bridge age is 50 years, and the average deck area is 2,778 square feet. HNTB is now working with MDOT and local agency bridge owners to perform preliminary planning for the next bundle package, pending available funding.

Jim Peterson, PE Vice President and Design-Build Director jpeterson@HNTB.com

Roger Safford, PE Associate Vice President and Senior Project Manager rsafford@HNTB.com

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Jim Peterson has more than 30 years of bridge engineering and design management experience with a focus on staffing, work planning, scheduling, budgeting, dispute/change management and implementing best practices for successful project delivery. He has led large-scale projects across the country, including serving as design manager for the Missouri Safe and Sound Program and as design project director for the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, the first cable-stayed bridge ever built in New York City.

Roger Safford has 40 years of experience providing program and policy advisory leadership to deliver value and innovation to DOT clients and local agencies. During Roger’s 10-year tenure as a member of Michigan’s Statewide Asset Management Council, including as chairman in 2015, he championed the first Local Agency Bridge Asset Management Guidance document — the policy milestone that led to the FHWA approving federal funds for local bridge capital preventive maintenance projects. Prior to joining HNTB, Roger served 29 years with the Michigan DOT. Transportation Point Extra is distributed by email to professionals in the transportation industry.

To be added to the list, send your request to requests@hntb.com. ©2021 HNTB Companies. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.