The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20131753.tiffRESOLUTION RE; APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO SELECT CONCRETE MATERIALS FOR COUNTY ROAD 49 EXTENSION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with proposals from the Asphalt and Concrete Industry Representatives, respectively, for their consideration in selecting a preferred paving material for the County Road 49 Extension Project, and WHEREAS, after review and based on staff's recommendation, the Board deems it advisable to select concrete, as the preferred paving material. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the recommendation of staff to select concrete as the paving material for the County Road 49 Project is approved, and staff is hereby directed to proceed with the procurement process to select a specific company from said industry to complete the project. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 10th day of July, A.D., 2013. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD CIdt1MTY, COLORADO BY: Deputy APP to the Boa Attorney Weld County Clerk to the Board Wi liam`F. Garcia, Chair V v ougla Radema er, Pro-Tem can P. Conway reeman Date of signature: JUL 3 0 2013 Barbara Kirkm'yer 2013-1753 EG0068 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 9, 2013 FROM: Wayne Howard, P.E., County Engineer SUBJECT: WCR 49 Corridor — Paving Surface The WCR 49 Corridor has the highest volume of heavy truck traffic of all roadways in Weld County, including the CDOT Highways. PW has recorded the steady increase in this traffic on WCR 49 and we do not anticipate that this will diminish anytime soon. In fact, it is anticipated to increase once the roadway is connected to the north of US 34 as truck traffic finds this route much more convenient and attractive than other routes such as the US 85 Corridor. This memo shall serve as the recommendation from the PW Department concerning the paving surface material for the WCR 49 Corridor. PW has been performing an in-depth research and analysis on which paving surface (concrete or asphalt) would be in the best long term interest of Weld County. Both industries have had an opportunity to talk directly to the BOCC at work sessions and PW staff has met with both industries as well to discuss the products. PW staff has also met with local CDOT materials staff to discuss their past experiences with both products. Based on the research, analysis, and supporting documentation, PW is recommending that the WCR 49 Corridor use concrete as the paving surface. The long term savings in maintenance and ability to carry heavy truck loadings are overwhelming factors that went into this recommendation. 2013-1753 • g �5• - •-• V 8` I. •...• • • • Y • •e.. ..• • • i-•--t..-••..-• • • • • • • • 1....• .� • • • • •a. • �••• S • • *4 •••• ..A�• • • ...N...�...�...�..- . f.� •• • • • i a a° o rim •. Q p N `x •"" gri. salon N s •' gl NI QY S •.. • • • • PS . 1. N • 8 II el N F ""Q `.11 C < 1). --.. ... ••• Y.. -.. ...... 5.... •• .••• .•• •. •....... z a, H • • • I • • 1 w • • • we • • • • tie OD N N • is N al Q 4) p • . 1 • • • • • •••• • • �i. Mb • • I p...ti•a.e.•vs, . . 1 • • • OI e.•.•..1 wi • ! ■ ■f��nr I N rn • • • • }.. •a • • • • • t• ••4 • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • I • • • ' •• • I L.1. ✓405r-••i•••Li.ut••••i•.• T• • • • - 1 • . • • • • • • • • • ••.}•.•• • • • • • • i • • • AD •• 54 • • • • • • • • ••• • • •• • • . • • • / • • • •.�•.! • • • . •• • • i• 4> •• • • Si! ••••'...5 r..• mieN 00 • • • V7 a 1 .• • Q + •.. ..•..•..• 5505• • ■ • • it • • N " Y N Oa:! Alt V N •— � .. la oor -w. ••• • 00 •rob rr ,•_ • .+ NArr 1st* •••Y • • • 1 In 0 1-055 • • • • au ...i•ri .- • NaE • § o N • a IA M' • • n Q 0555 N Q 1.•.L•.. -u.� . ..17. •D� R +. . 2HN��I: i V • >fno� �Sss • • 4 • • ii • • • • • •yM I ♦• �. • . • • • • ��/� • , • • • • IA • . I • • • ��;•///... 1 • r•ae S o a idle. a••.�.•.g••• i••• rsiN...o•..S. r 1..8 C _• c ai N pp. I...... Vgp ..��'-'ONOAf"N • N rig ,��,'•/••.... $Q� t to a — in (3 • • S. • • • • . 5% • • cc! ae Q p N s• - 5p N •' Q Q >4- 8 p V7 • SU • O G .►•..��•..•.5•.. *emir _ • • >- • 0 • O+1 • 0054---• .•.•• • • • I • • • • • • ■ • • • • .� i-0 • • • • • • • • • • • g t: i • • •. I � .- D p `g •. •••••. N C �1•• I '�R[ a. • • N • 146.21A N C 1 A • • �..» ~p Q c .1\x.14.-4 w • Q�(AV iV • • • • • • N322 2c0 C)-',, • • • ate V c a p N If) • z ti H CO O N Weld County Public Works Pavement Comparison Total Life Cycle Cost/Total Design Life 1., Co CO CO M O 'O mE T2 V n n C WCR 49 Project - Pavement Life Cycle Cost Comparison (Cost/Mile oti l V P cC a2 N F 0 }U N C. 0 m' i� N2 N- N: F. N N N . lu > V O 0 tV 2 a P C m 2 O AU • ; F N b 0 §U O m °- m co co te NJ J N Y N WCR 49 Corridor Construction Surface Type Asphalt Pavement (0% Inflation)(R = 40)(3 Miles) Asphalt Pavement (0% Inflation)(R = 20)(30 Miles) CO CO In Concrete Pavement (0% Inflation)( Total Initial Pavement Cost for the full 33 Miles: J a. CO Q 0 C rn U a 2 v U LL a' N O F N n O N g O n U o m y s v N .0 N U a w c o Q l V N CONCRETE 2 > N d EY O C o j 9 EUx ✓ m N J v 'co E U N L C QO O W E J a N • N Ci Option 1 (Asphalt) = $1.478 x 3 miles + $1.847 x 30 miles = $59,850,000 Option 2 (Concrete) = $1.602 x 33 miles = 52,884,447 (13% Lower Initial Price Difference) ten per mile ever 5 yea General Notes 9 Co(0 O C U N'^ C- m cs N • U E • n E o c C E Option 1 Option 2 WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS UPDATE Project Name WCR 49 Ext. Project Limits 1 MILE DATE 7 -May -13 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,847,175 LENGTH 5,280' WIDTH 80' 20 Design ESAL = 13,057,000 R = 20 CONSTRUCTION COSTS UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL Asphalt PG 76-28 (Sx)(2")(Top Lift) TON $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Asphalt PG 64-22 (S)(8.5") (Bottom Lift) TON $ 57.00 22,000 $ 1,254,000.00 Gravel Class 6 ABC (9") TON $ 12.00 21,400 $ 256,800.00 Total Per Mile $ 1,847,175.00 Maintenance Cost (Contracted) every 10 yrs Milling 2" SY $ 3.00 46,934 $ 140,802.00 2" Overlay (PG 76-28) Ton $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Total Per Mile $ 477,177.00 Crack Fill Ton $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 Total Per Mile $ 2,400.00 Assumptions: 0% inflation HMA 147 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.44 ABC 135 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.12 HMA Costs based on local CDOT projects within past several years Milling Cost based on WCR 60.5 and 53 project Crack Fill Based on Weld County Cost WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS UPDATE Project Name WCR 49 Ext. Project Limits 1 MILE DATE 7 -May -13 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,478,100 LENGTH 5,280' WIDTH 80' 20 Design ESAL = 13,057,000 R = 40 CONSTRUCTION COSTS UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL Asphalt PG 76-28 (Sx)(2")(Top Lift) TON $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Asphalt PG 64-22 (S)(6") (Bottom Lift) TON $ 57.00 15,525 $ 884,925.00 Gravel Class 6 ABC (9") TON $ 12.00 21,400 $ 256,800.00 Total Per Mile $ 1,478,100.00 Maintenance Cost (Contracted) every 10 yrs Milling 2" SY $ 3.00 46,934 $ 140,802.00 2" Overlay (PG 76-28) Ton $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Total Per Mile $ 477,177.00 Crack Fill Ton $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 Total Per Mile $ 2,400.00 Assumptions: 0% inflation HMA 147 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.44 ABC 135 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.12 HMA Costs based on local CDOT projects within past several years Milling Cost based on WCR 60.5 and 53 project Crack Fill Based on Weld County Cost WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS UPDATE Project Name WCR 49 Ext. Project Limits 1 MILE DATE 7 -May -13 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,602,559 LENGTH 5,280' WIDTH 80' 30 Year ESAL = 24,612,000 K= 250 CONSTRUCTION COSTS UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL Concrete Pavement ( 11") SY $ 30.50 46,934 $ 1,431,487.00 Gravel Class 6 ABC at 6" TON $ 12.00 14,256 $ 171,072.00 Total Per Mile $ 1,602,559.00 MAINTENANCE COST Crack Fill Ton $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 Concrete Grinding 1/4" SY $ 4.00 28,160 $ 112,640.00 Concrete Panel Replacement SY $ 250.00 140 $ 35,000.00 Total Per Mile $ 150,040.00 Assumptions: 0% Inflation Crack Fill Based on Weld County Cost Concrete panel replacement 0.5% over 20 years @ $250/sy Concrete 1/4" grinding driving lanes at 22 yrs = 28,160 sy @ $4 sy Crack Fill based on 1 ton per mile ever 5 years Vehicle Motion Vehicle Wheel Loading Drive/Brake t► Loading Rigid Pavement 1 Base Course71.t J j j Subbase Course I Compacted Subgrade .1. Natural Subgrade Subgrade Reaction (k -value) ` Rigid Layer `, r � t k..,,,:fie S y,ce e. �. v..,, .�, _ \ `� t, � Conventional Rigid Figure 2.5 Distribution of Wheel Load to Subgrade Reaction (k -value) Concrete (Rigid) Wheel Load Distribution Vehicle Motion Vehicle Wheel Loading Drive/Brake Loading - } : 1'' IFlexible Pavement ✓ -,- , ^ �; Unbound Base Unbound Subbase Compacted Subgrade a Natural Subgradel Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR) A Z4jRigidLayer la,,�-; :�"' ‘ _ .... 'i; NR'-ne l� .' :. x . Conventional Flexible Figure 2.2 Distribution of Wheel Load to Subgrade Soil (MR) Asphalt (Flexible) Wheel Load Distribution FOR INFORMATION ONLY Comparable Cash Flow Diagrams Indi el Construction 51A713 Crack Seal 52,400 Option 1 Mill & Fill $477,177 Crack Seal $2,400 Mill S Fdl $477,177 A Yr 0 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 15 Yr 20 240 220 200 180 200 180 120 100 20 Yr Asphalt Cash Flow Diagram 5/Mile Initial Conslrudron 51.602 M A Option 3 blamond Grinding $112,640 Crack Seal Crock Seal Crack Seal Panel Repair Crack Seal Crack Scut 52.400 $2,400 $2,400 $35,000 $2,400 $2,400 T T T T Yr 0 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 15 Y 20 Yr 25 Yr 27 Yr 30 30 Yr Concrete Cash Flow Diagram 5/Mile Building Material Price Index Prodtacer Price I - Corn pre tilt ive Buildir„g Materials Corlcrr`n: 2005 2006 200w 2006 2009 2010 2011 Sc, arGat: B0rata4 of Labor Statistics: Oroducatr Pricat rrndex, Asphalt pavl rag Mbct,. rats S Blocks_ laatady Mrar Concrete_ Steal 1.-lW Praducts. Lumber and Wood products Esther Gesick From: Karla Ford Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 2:17 PM To: William Garcia; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Sean Conway; Douglas Rademacher;, Mike Freeman Cc: Jennifer Fuller; Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Weld County Road 49 Extension - Pavement Type Selection Public Hearing Attachments: WCR49LCCA-CountyVersion7-1-2013withCAPAcommentsNPV.xlsx; CAPAComments- WCR49LCCAJuly2013.doc Commissioners, This gentleman asked this be forwarded to each of you. Have a great day! Karla Ford R Deputy Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970)336-7215 X4228 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Tom Peterson lmailto:tompeterson@co-asphalt.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 1:54 PM To: Karla Ford Subject: Weld County Road 49 Extension - Pavement Type Selection Public Hearing (Karla, Please forward to the Commissioners. Thanks, Tom Peterson, Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association) To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners; RE: Weld County Road 49 Extension — Pavement Type Selection Public Hearing We look forward to the WCR49 Public Hearing at 9am, Wednesday, July 10. We will be in attendance and plan to make comment. The following information and attached documents are provided FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. Specifically, it is our perspective that if the Weld County life cycle cost analysis was completed in accordance with accepted standard practice and following CDOT guidelines the difference between the asphalt and concrete options would be much closer and worthy of considering an asphalt bid alternate on the project. Attached is a revised analysis that incorporates our comments on the following four items. Namely, ... - Unequal salvage value - Disparity in calculating total cost - Not accounting for the time value of money 1 - Unrealistic time intervals between asphalt rehabilitations In addition, we feel that the Weld County staff estimated initial construction cost savings from concrete would be negated by factoring in the "economy of scale" cost reduction in asphalt and factoring in the potential cost savings on other bid items such as earthwork, mobilization, traffic control, etc. Thus, the opportunity and benefit of including an asphalt bid alternate. The concern of truck volumes and truck weights is valid and has been accounted for in both the structural design and material requirements of the asphalt option. The thickness of the asphalt section has been increased to account for this factor and the use of premium asphalt materials has also been incorporated into the cost analysis. Using a bid alternate approach, the county reserves the right to have a bid adjustment factor to account for the difference in estimated future maintenance and rehabilitation for asphalt and concrete. Allowing the asphalt alternate would increase the number of bidders, thereby resulting in lower costs to the county, and allow Weld County based companies an opportunity to bid on this project. Here are the Weld County provisions related to bidding preference. Section 14-9. Bidding — Procedure. (3) The County Commissioners shall give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all cases where the bids are competitive in price and quality. Code, 5-4-30-A(3) The Board of County Commissioners shall give preference to resident County bidders in all cases where the bids are competitive in price and quality. In summary, we request that our revised cost comparison be considered and that asphalt be considered as a bid alternate on the WCR 49 project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom Peterson Thomas Peterson, P.E., Executive Director Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association (303) 741-6150 ext. 152 cell: (303) 229-6710 www.co-asphalt.com, tompeterson .,co-asphalt.com 2 iolorado Asphalt Pavement Association To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners; Date: July 10, 2013 RE: Weld County Road 49 Extension — Pavement Type Selection Public Hearing The following information and attached documents are provided FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. Specifically, it is our perspective that if the Weld County life cycle cost analysis was completed in accordance with accepted standard practice and following CDOT guidelines the difference between the asphalt and concrete options would be much closer and worthy of considering an asphalt bid alternate on the project. Attached is a revised analysis that incorporates our comments on the following four items. Namely, ... - Unequal salvage value - Disparity in calculating total cost - Not accounting for the time value of money - Unrealistic time intervals between asphalt rehabilitations In addition, we feel that the Weld County staff estimated initial construction cost savings from concrete would be negated by factoring in the "economy of scale" cost reduction in asphalt and factoring in the potential cost savings on other bid items such as earthwork, mobilization, traffic control, etc. Thus, the opportunity and benefit of including an asphalt bid alternate. The concern of truck volumes and truck weights is valid and has been accounted for in both the structural design and material requirements of the asphalt option. The thickness of the asphalt section has been increased to account for this factor and the use of premium asphalt materials has also been incorporated into the cost analysis. Using a bid alternate approach, the county reserves the right to have a bid adjustment factor to account for the difference in estimated future maintenance and rehabilitation for asphalt and concrete. Allowing the asphalt alternate would increase the number of bidders, thereby resulting in lower costs to the county, and allow Weld County based companies an opportunity to bid on this project. Here are the Weld County provisions related to bidding preference. Section 14-9. Bidding — Procedure. (3) The County Commissioners shall give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all cases where the bids are competitive in price and quality. Code, 5-4-30-A(3) The Board of County Commissioners shall give preference to resident County bidders in all cases where the bids are competitive in price and quality. In summary, we request that our revised cost comparison be considered and that asphalt be included as a bid alternate on the WCR 49 project. Sincerely, Thomas Peterson, P.E. Executive Director, Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association CAPA Comments on Weld County Cost Analysis — WCR 49 General Comments: In the Weld County developed cost analysis, 49% and 44% of the cost of the asphalt options, respectively, are for future maintenance and rehabilitation. For the concrete option, less than 10% of the cost of the option (9.2%) is for future maintenance and rehabilitation. This huge disparity in assumed future maintenance and rehab underscores an extremely conservative schedule for asphalt rehab (ie. 10 year intervals) and minimal cost for concrete. Specific Comments. 1. Time intervals between rehabilitation The Weld County analysis includes an asphalt mill and overlay rehabilitation at 10 year intervals. We were told this was due to structural concerns of truck loading. This is extremely conservative and is the single most significant contributor in the asphalt vs. concrete disparity in the analysis. Based on CDOT methodology and practices for state highways, using he PG 76-28 asphalt, the minimum time between rehabs should be a minimum of 13 years. The original Weld County analysis had the asphalt rehabs at years 15 and 25. Knowing the pavement design is adequate structurally and using the PG 76-28 asphalt binder, the milUoverlay rehabs are to address surface durability issues. It is not unreasonable to assume a time to first rehab at 15 years rather than the Weld County proposed 10 years. 2. Unequal Salvage Value The Weld County analysis includes an additional asphalt rehabilitation at the conclusion of the 30 year analysis period. This is contrary to standard practice and creates an unequal salvage value of the two analysis. The CDOT LCCA methodology requires that both options have the equal salvage value at the end of the analysis period. Including the cost of an additional asphalt mill/overlay at year 30 creates an unequal salvage value and violates standard practice of comparing one option versus another. The cost of the asphalt rehabilaition needs to be removed from the analysis. 3. Total life cycle cost calculated based on total design life vs. analysis period The Weld County analysis makes a total cost comparison of options based on the design life of the option versus the length of the analysis period. This approach violates standard practice and CDOT methodology and skews the results heavily in favor of the option with the longer design life. The CDOT methodology includes a 20 year asphalt design and a 30 year concrete design. CDOT then normalizes the comparison by using the same length of analysis period. To make the comparison equivalent using the Weld County methodology (ie. design life), the asphalt rehab costs after year 20 years should not be included. This includes the $477,177 of asphalt rehab that occurs at theoretically at 20 years and 1 day. 4. Accounting for the time value of money The Weld County analysis assumes a 0% inflation rate and does include a discount rate or any factors to account for the time value of money. This approach is contrary to standard practice and penalizes the option with higher future maintenance and rehabilitation costs. The Net Present Value (NPV) approach to engineering economics is the most standard approach and used by CDOT. By not including an economic value to future costs, the option with a higher amount of future maintenance and rehab costs is penalized and inaccurately accounted for in the analysis. The CDOT 2013 Pavement Design Manual includes a discount rate of 2.8% per year. We suggest that the CDOT standard for cost accounting be used to account for future costs. Weld County Public Works Pavement Comparison WCR 49 Project - Pavement Life Cycle Cost Comparison (Cost/Mile) 0 e T d F CO oO N N O m 0 m N M O O tD O wi M M N A mT V r 0 o J U a 0 (0 >r 0 w m O 0 a N O 0 N w O M N w 00 0 00 0 00 0 LO 69 N Ill la } N N CO N mt- 00 40 a CD CD O M oo oo Co OD N (R N 03 c O CO } lh a Lri co O on LU C o @ >- N co to N O a) m O m 0 O m 0 Ce o_ 00 N N- n 00 co 0 N co 2m 2 Q oa Q fo 2 Q or:” UU a¢ 0 O N 0 O N Y M Construction Surface Type Asphalt Pavement (0% Inflation)(R = 40)(3 Miles) Asphalt Pavement (0% Inflation)(R = 20)(30 Miles) Concrete Pavement (0% Inflation)(K=250)(33 Miles) Total Initial Pavement Cost for the full 33 Miles Disadvantages x N C O) CONCRETE f2 > o¢ t a) U � a1 O C d E P N co (n to j N U 5 0 - O C Q J O_'U r N M T 4 Q � N 02 J U l6 0)V C 4 — U O O N =' 'Fa J (0(n C cacti cc cia P3 N co) Y U @ 3 3 CA 'O N ta 0 W<0< O Z�M2< ci U C o '=v S c o a_ m Tw O o COa7 at J m y nJ N O U C N NE N M V La r NC•I V' LC C t CO Option 1 (Asphalt) & Option 2 (Asphalt) = $1.487 x 3 miles + $1.847 x 30 miles = $59,850,000 Option 3 (Concrete) = $1.602 x 33 miles = 52,884,447 (13% Lower Initial Price Difference) General Notes E co co °1 CO O N c N C c o O U a 2 o N .0 c C O m 0 E O to a w 0 R C U O J a E o O U C O C oi y d N 2 W c W V N O N m U 3 ° y w ro C U al co 0 cd N U d o '� a Er E R > O N N C E y O U O O C T a a.) o 0 C N 0 0 co O 0 m c 0 R V 1 O t° E 0 s U m o m U < Crack Fill maintenance 1 ton per mile ever 5 years Notes: Concrete to co C N N 0 0 U D N ry T N T N in C o N N O _ E o N R E y 0 O U a m O C O C C n E 0 = o U C O 0 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS UPDATE Project Name WCR 49 Project Limits 1 MILE DATE 1 -Jul -13 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,847,175 LENGTH 5,280' WIDTH 80' 20 Design ESAL = 13,057,000 R= 20 CONSTRUCTION COSTS UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL Asphalt PG 76-28 (Sx)(2")(Top Lift) TON $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Asphalt PG 64-22 (S)(8.5") (Bottom Lift) TON $ 57.00 22,000 $ 1,254,000.00 Gravel Class 6 ABC (9") TON $ 12.00 21,400 $ 256,800.00 Total Per Mile $ 1,847,175.00 Maintenance Cost (Contracted) every 10 yrs Milling 2" SY $ 3.00 46,934 $ 140,802.00 2" Overlay (PG 76-28) Ton $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Total Per Mile $ 477,177.00 Crack Fill Ton $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 Total Per Mile $ 2,400.00 Assumptions: 2.8% discount rate used to calculate net present value HMA 147 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.44 ABC 135 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.12 HMA Costs based on local CDOT projects within past several years Milling Cost based on WCR 60.5 and 53 project Crack Fill Based on Weld County Cost WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS UPDATE Project Name WCR 49 Ext. Project Limits 1 MILE DATE 1 -Jul -13 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,478,100 LENGTH 5,280' WIDTH 80' 20 Design ESAL = 13,057,000 R= 40 CONSTRUCTION COSTS UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL Asphalt PG 76-28 (Sx)(2")(Top Lift) TON $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Asphalt PG 64-22 (S)(6") (Bottom Lift) TON $ 57.00 15,525 $ 884,925.00 Gravel Class 6 ABC (9") TON $ 12.00 21,400 $ 256,800.00 Total Per Mile $ 1,478,100.00 Maintenance Cost (Contracted) every 10 yrs Milling 2" SY $ 3.00 46,934 $ 140,802.00 2" Overlay (PG 76-28) Ton $ 65.00 5,175 $ 336,375.00 Total Per Mile $ 477,177.00 Crack Fill Ton $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 Total Per Mile $ 2,400.00 Assumptions: 2.8% discount rate used to calculate net present value HMA 147 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.44 ABC 135 pcf / Structural Coefficient used was 0.12 HMA Costs based on local CDOT projects within past several years Milling Cost based on WCR 60.5 and 53 project Crack Fill Based on Weld County Cost WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET STATUS UPDATE Project Name WCR 49 Ext. Project Limits 1 MILE DATE 1 -Jul -13 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,602,559 LENGTH 5,280' WIDTH 80' 30 Year ESAL = 24,612,000 K = 250 CONSTRUCTION COSTS UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL Concrete Pavement ( 11") SY $ 30.50 46,934 $ 1,431,487.00 Gravel Class 6 ABC at 6" TON $ 12.00 14,256 $ 171,072.00 Total Per Mile $ 1,602,559.00 MAINTENANCE COST Crack Fill Ton $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 Concrete Grinding 1/4" SY $ 4.00 28,160 $ 112,640.00 Concrete Panel Replacement SY $ 250.00 140 $ 35,000.00 Total Per Mile $ 150,040.00 Assumptions: 2.8% discount rate used to calculate net present value Crack Fill Based on Weld County Cost Concrete panel replacement 0.5% over 20 years @ $250/sy Concrete 1/4" grinding driving lanes at 22 yrs = 28,160 sy @ $4 sy Crack Fill based on 1 ton per mile ever 5 years 1, 4..• x a) Z a) is I_ is. 4,..• • co simo C a) E au ea a a) ow a) L U C O V Generation Jamie Johnson, PE O co . U O 0 Q 4J C cu bn E c U 4) C 2 co C O O ,(/) n- 0 • L —ms E 0) 4) E C O '—A U � C >m LU C O N Q) U EO O —a ri > w > ca D 44 0.- Portland Cement Association a 0 4-o GJ a E 0 U 16 emo O a) L X10 W ID CUW a) a E 0 V 0 73 co 0 0 U .C Cr) O 0 —0 ca s_se fp O L— o L 4) .0 4) (13 t.3 c 4-) o Ln U '._ • C 0 64-1 co 4-1 ``^^1l1 ( W ) O O N 17 C . co 4-1 co E O _c co S C O O 4-1 4-0 c� O • E cIN° I Ni N 00 � N CU N z I . cm cn a) L. be 0 a c a cD a) > O O +-1 CU . a) a -70 Denver to Kansas State • C m 0 ro 0 c0 • co .c 4) L L 0 c0 E 1. 4- a) > co • co s Q • co O %-i L. co a) 44 Om Portland Cement Association 4-• tn in U a) v >i% 4- a) N r W 1- t.) O C ii - 0 D U E L v) v) 0 u co D u co C 0 es. 0 no co L__ 0 U C -O . 4) v) v) 75 cu co DO O N 4.-) L U o • a) +-a a) L_ u C 0 u CU 4- — 30 year design o -o co be C C9 I I N N L. co a) 4J co L. CD a a) L. Maintenance is I E N co O O 4-4 no O In In C E C O v v U U N J CO s a Q 0 D v co U co C O so v.) 4) co 4J cu a tl) Q • O mo co O O U C co O 4-• C aA to a) CD a) 0 N C .o (13 .— CU ID m (13 ri , a) O O cL CU CD v co 03 I . N ea O m C 0 0 4-0 U) Q C C • v L 0 U 4- co a) • Co a) 0 LO C 0 a) cc 0 0 C) U C Co •— a) 03 co cD co 0 O O_ U CO a) 4-) 4-1 Sn S U L C O a) U O U O v a) co ai a) 0 L U U O U • c 0 Li ro 4-0 In a E Co Smoothness 0 0 U N co 4-1 4-0 a� CU 4J CO sc co cn co N 4-1 L O U • C O co U 9— U a) a t/) 4) C O O E • cu > s-- o w i- 4) >. EN V)4-1 CD Co V) Li) C o 0 m a) tol O 0 0 v C) U � C O OA U C co > n3 co �- s-- _ O C aca O co isaw >3/4o 03) U co a) 2.) V O � U 00 ea) co 2 Q • N L co -O co .E _c ca O CU 4C-5 O V Om Portland Cement Association I a) Sc, 8. esti a z is a) .x 9-- CO 4--1 CD XI N • 4-1 C N N co a) +-J a) a_ U O • price increases CD L. — ICU 4-1 CO F 4— O S . L. CU F v) v) C) L... -i—, Co L. 4-.) O V during project O O U a) L. C6 N L O 4..) c.i CO simi a) E in • ....., -O LL co 0 O. S V) L W 4-1 V) 4- V) .V) C 4-1 C a) F a) > Co a 4-0 CO a V) CO O 4- O (0 O • O U OA C L D 73 U C CU tan CD a) 4-J O 4-1 cm (1) U . L. a . O L._ a) _c auo LE 4— O construction W L.- (.0 V) L-- 0 U CD - 4--) C C) F LI) m 73 CO 4-1 CD a CD CD 4-) U 4- W > 0 F- • • V) X ICU S V) O L CU 4--1 CO 4J V) a) CO V . C C O F F O V L.: w U .C k C E mo L.ru rco m 9.4-• +J L il me cu c E a) wW J •Imo -w X a) c gima a) i t U ++ ci- 00 ` MO C @ @ G • • C 0 LI) E E 0 U M O N 1 O 1 >3/4 D 4J - C D O U Esther Gesick From: Sent: To: Subject: Wayne Howard Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:07 AM Esther Gesick FW: Public Hearing Below is the email! I will also send the email that I sent to the concrete industry Wayne Howard, P.E. County Engineer Public Works, Engineering Division P.O. Box 758, 1111 H St. 970-304-6496, Ext 3788 970-304-6497, fax Website: http://www.co.weld.co.us Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Wayne Howard Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:05 PM To: 'Tom Peterson' Subject: RE: Public Hearing From: Wayne Howard [mailto:whoward©co.weld.co.us] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:39 PM To: Tom Peterson Subject: Public Hearing Tom, the Board has scheduled a public hearing for July 10th at 9:00 for the Board of Commissioners to publically hear from industries, staff, and the public on the issue of which paving surface will be used for the WCR 49 Corridor projects. They intend to make a voted decision that day. The meeting begins at 9:00 and they will allow most of the agenda items to go ahead of this discussion to allow others to leave. They are allowing 5 minutes for each industry and public to speak before them. At the end of the discussion staff will also give their recommendation to the Board for consideration. (This will only be available during the hearing) The Deputy Clerk to the Board has asked that you contact her if you have any questions regarding the hearing or need help with electronic presentation materials. Esther Gesick can be reached at 970-356-4000, ext. 4226. I have attached an updated life cycle cost analysis that will also be sent to the Board for consideration. Let me know if you have any questions. Wayne Howard, P.E. County Engineer Public Works, Engineering Division P.O. Box 758, 1111 H St. 970-304-6496, Ext 3788 970-304-6497, fax Website: http://www.co.weld.co.us Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 2 Esther Gesick From: Wayne Howard Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:08 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Attachments: Public Hearing Concrete Asphalt Life Cycle Analysis.xlsx Here you go! Wayne Howard, P.E. County Engineer Public Works, Engineering Division P.O. Box 758, 1111 H St. 970-304-6496, Ext 3788 970-304-6497, fax Website: http://www.co.weld.co.us Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Wayne Howard Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:08 PM To: 'Johnson, Jamie' Subject: Jamie, the Board has scheduled a public hearing for July 10th at 9:00 for the Board of Commissioners to publically hear from industries, staff, and the public on the issue of which paving surface will be used for the WCR 49 Corridor projects. They intend to make a voted decision that day. The meeting begins at 9:00 and they will allow most of the agenda items to go ahead of this discussion to allow others to leave. They are allowing 5 minutes for each industry and public to speak before them. At the end of the discussion staff will also give their recommendation to the Board for consideration. (This will only be available during the hearing) The Deputy Clerk to the Board has asked that you contact her if you have any questions regarding the hearing or need help with electronic presentation materials. Esther Gesick can be reached at 970-356-4000, ext. 4226. I have attached an updated life cycle cost analysis that will also be sent to the Board for consideration. Let me know if you have any questions. Wayne Howard, P.E. 1 County Engineer Public Works, Engineering Division P.O. Box 758, 1111 H St. 970-304-6496, Ext 3788 970-304-6497, fax Website: http://www.co.weld.co.us Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PASS -AROUND REVIEW/ WORK SESSION REQUEST RE: CR 49 Protect DEPARTMENT: CTB/Public Works PERSON REQUESTING: Esther Gesick/Wayne Howard DATE: June 17, 2013 Brief description of the problem/issue: Work sessions were held on 4/29/13 and 6/3/13 with representatives of the Asphalt and Concrete industries concerning their interest in the CR 49 Project. Following those work sessions the Board determined that the decision between the two industries should be held in a public hearing forum. In speaking with Bruce Barker and Wayne Howard, staff is proposing the following process: 1) Notify the two industry representatives via e-mail correspondence at least 10 days prior to a proposed public hearing date of July 10, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., following regular Agenda business. 2) Allow staff to provide a general overview of the scope of the project. 3) Allow each industry representative an opportunity to present their argument for selecting their product. [should there be a time limit, if so, how long?] 4) Allow staff to make a recommendation. 5) Board vote to select an industry, which will give staff direction on how to draft Bid specifications in preparation of the procurement process. What options exist for the Board? (Include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options) Approve the proposed process; -and/or- Provide direction on preferred process (i.e., Do you want to give each side an allotted time to present?) Recommendation: Approve the proposed process with instruction on whether the presentations should be for a specific length of time. Approve Recommendation William F. Garcia, Chair Douglas Rademacher Sean P. Conway Mike Freeman Barb Kirkmeyer Schedule Work Session Other/Comments: pn'h n cv ipc tux `L•44ICk SrF.v o. grft w:3F-L. Oowu Esther Gesick From: Esther Gesick Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:38 PM To: Wayne Howard Cc: Monica Mika; Bruce Barker; Trevor Jiricek Subject: WCR 49 Project - Asphalt vs. Concrete Industries Attachments: CR 49 Project.pdf Wayne, Attached is the response I received back from the Board concerning the public hearing process for July 10th. Just send me copies of the replies from the industry reps acknowledging your notice and I'll include those with the backup. They can contact me to arrange use of the PowerPoint if that's what they decide to do. (Note: The Board indicated 5 -minute presentations!) Also, would you please provide me with a copy of your recommendation once its ready? Monica — I put the original pass -around sheet in your file that Tammy is working from. Thanks! Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board/Office Manager 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 336-7215 X4226 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 iceolorado Asphalt Pavement Association To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners; Date: July 10, 2013 RE: Weld County Road 49 Extension — Pavement Type Selection Public Hearing The following information and attached documents are provided FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. Specifically, it is our perspective that if the Weld County life cycle cost analysis was completed in accordance with accepted standard practice and following CDOT guidelines the difference between the asphalt and concrete options would be much closer and worthy of considering an asphalt bid alternate on the project. Attached is a revised analysis that incorporates our comments on the following four items. Namely, ... - Unequal salvage value - Disparity in calculating total cost - Not accounting for the time value of money - Unrealistic time intervals between asphalt rehabilitations In addition, we feel that the Weld County staff estimated initial construction cost savings from concrete would be negated by factoring in the "economy of scale" cost reduction in asphalt and factoring in the potential cost savings on other bid items such as earthwork, mobilization, traffic control, etc. Thus, the opportunity and benefit of including an asphalt bid alternate. The concern of truck volumes and truck weights is valid and has been accounted for in both the structural design and material requirements of the asphalt option. The thickness of the asphalt section has been increased to account for this factor and the use of premium asphalt materials has also been incorporated into the cost analysis. Using a bid alternate approach, the county reserves the right to have a bid adjustment factor to account for the difference in estimated future maintenance and rehabilitation for asphalt and concrete. Allowing the asphalt alternate would increase the number of bidders, thereby resulting in lower costs to the county, and allow Weld County based companies an opportunity to bid on this project. Here are the Weld County provisions related to bidding preference. Section 14-9. Bidding — Procedure. (3) The County Commissioners shall give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all cases where the bids are competitive in price and quality. Code, 5-4-30-A(3) The Board of County Commissioners shall give preference to resident County bidders in all cases where the bids are competitive in price and quality. In summary, we request that our revised cost comparison be considered and that asphalt be included as a bid alternate on the WCR 49 project. Sincerely, Thomas Peterson, P.E. Executive Director, Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association CAPA Comments on Weld County Cost Analysis — WCR 49 General Comments: In the Weld County developed cost analysis, 49% and 44% of the cost of the asphalt options, respectively, are for future maintenance and rehabilitation. For the concrete option, less than 10% of the cost of the option (9.2%) is for future maintenance and rehabilitation. This huge disparity in assumed future maintenance and rehab underscores an extremely conservative schedule for asphalt rehab (ie. 10 year intervals) and minimal cost for concrete. Specific Comments. 1. Time intervals between rehabilitation The Weld County analysis includes an asphalt mill and overlay rehabilitation at 10 year intervals. We were told this was due to structural concerns of truck loading. This is extremely conservative and is the single most significant contributor in the asphalt vs. concrete disparity in the analysis. Based on CDOT methodology and practices for state highways, using he PG 76-28 asphalt, the minimum time between rehabs should be a minimum of 13 years. The original Weld County analysis had the asphalt rehabs at years 15 and 25. Knowing the pavement design is adequate structurally and using the PG 76-28 asphalt binder, the mill/overlay rehabs are to address surface durability issues. It is not unreasonable to assume a time to first rehab at 15 years rather than the Weld County proposed 10 years. 2. Unequal Salvage Value The Weld County analysis includes an additional asphalt rehabilitation at the conclusion of the 30 year analysis period. This is contrary to standard practice and creates an unequal salvage value of the two analysis. The CDOT LCCA methodology requires that both options have the equal salvage value at the end of the analysis period. Including the cost of an additional asphalt mill/overlay at year 30 creates an unequal salvage value and violates standard practice of comparing one option versus another. The cost of the asphalt rehabilaition needs to be removed from the analysis. 3. Total life cycle cost calculated based on total design life vs. analysis period The Weld County analysis makes a total cost comparison of options based on the design life of the option versus the length of the analysis period. This approach violates standard practice and CDOT methodology and skews the results heavily in favor of the option with the longer design life. The CDOT methodology includes a 20 year asphalt design and a 30 year concrete design. CDOT then normalizes the comparison by using the same length of analysis period. To make the comparison equivalent using the Weld County methodology (ie. design life), the asphalt rehab costs after year 20 years should not be included. This includes the $477,177 of asphalt rehab that occurs at theoretically at 20 years and 1 day. 4. Accounting for the time value of money The Weld County analysis assumes a 0% inflation rate and does include a discount rate or any factors to account for the time value of money. This approach is contrary to standard practice and penalizes the option with higher future maintenance and rehabilitation costs. The Net Present Value (NPV) approach to engineering economics is the most standard approach and used by CDOT. By not including an economic value to future costs, the option with a higher amount of future maintenance and rehab costs is penalized and inaccurately accounted for in the analysis. The CDOT 2013 Pavement Design Manual includes a discount rate of 2.8% per year. We suggest that the CDOT standard for cost accounting be used to account for future costs. Perspectives ACPA Positions and Perspectives on Key Issues Alternate Design/Alternate Bidding May 13, 2011 —The American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) recognizes the value of competition in the transportation construction community. In terms of pavement type selection, alternate design/alternate bidding (AD/AB) is one strategy that helps agencies manage costs, and at the same time, allows contractors and other industry partners remain competitive. Noting the increasing interest and use of AD/AB as an essential element of fair and equitable pavement type selection, this document relates ACPA's perspectives on the topic, notably: • Although AD/AB represents a viable strategy for achieving competition in pavement type selection, it should be noted it is not an end result, but simply a means to an end. It should be evaluated carefully and used in tandem with proven engineering principles and well - reasoned pavement type selection criteria. * The Federal Highway Administration in 2008 clarified its policy on alternate bidding with a memorandum' that outlined six factors that should be evaluated prior to making the determination to use alternate bidding procedures and five factors that should be considered once a decision has been made to bid alternate pavement types. • The guidance is in response to renewed interest in alternate design/alternate bidding (ADAB) by state departments of transportation. Although FHWA has not been actively encouraging the use of ADAB, it has been allowing it under a FHWA program called Special Experimental Projects No. 14 — Alternative Contracting (or SEP14). • There has been some lack of consistency in the guidance provided by FHWA in this regard, since an earlier (1981) FHWA policy statement affirms that alternate bids may be permitted if requested by the contracting agency, although subsequent guidance issued in the non - regulatory supplement of the FHWA Pavement Policy (23 CFR 626) does not encourage their use. Possibly due to this lack of clarity, there has been some inconsistency in the process by which states have tried and implemented ADAB. Other ACPA Perspectives ACPA agrees with the FHWA policy guidance, and further, advocates the agencies, contractors, and other stakeholders adopt the views espoused by FHWA in terms of factors that should be evaluated prior to making the determination to use alternate bidding: o The discount rate must be realistic, i.e., that future agency costs should be discounted to net present value or equivalent uniform annual costs using 1 "Clarification of FHWA Policy for Bidding Alternate Pavement Type on the National Highway System," memorandum from Peter J. Stephanos, Director, Office of Pavement Technology, Federal Highway Administration, dated November 13, 2008. Wage 0 0 0 ACPA also a contractors, that should 0 appropriate (real) discount rate consistent with the White House Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-94. o That uncertainty with performance life, material costs, construction duration, and future actions should be considered in the determination of total life -cycle cost for each alternative. Rehabilitation strategies selected for each equivalent design should accurately reflect current or anticipated owner -agency pavement management practices. Subjective factors, such as constructability, type of adjacent pavements, recycling, and conservation of materials should be considered. Designs must be equivalent. grees with the FHWA policy guidance, and further, advocates the agencies, and other stakeholders adopt the views espoused by FHWA in terms of factors be considered once a decision has been made to bid alternate pavement types: Alternate pavement type bidding procedures should only be used where the pavement items impacted by the alternate bid are likely to influence the final determination of the lowest responsive bidder for the project. o Price adjustment clauses should not be used when using alternate bidding procedures. o If quality -based incentives/disincentives are included with alternate bidding procedures, they should provide comparable opportunity for each alternate. o Owner -agencies should consider approaches that balance materials quantity risk between the alternate pavement types. o SEP 14 approval is needed if using adjustment factors, which should include, at a minimum, anticipated maintenance costs, anticipated rehabilitation costs, and salvage value. o Approval requirements, established under the FHWA's Pavement Type Selection Policy, published in the Federal Register on November 9, 1981, specifies that the division administrator shall review the analysis and concur in the finding of equivalency, when bidding alternate pavement types, and no adjustment factors are used. ACPA Staff Liaison Leif Wathne, P.E. — 202.638.2272 I lwathne@acpa.org Hello