Indiana Department of Transportation SEP 14 Report Alternate Pavement Type
Appendix H PR 69 (IR-31121)
Six (6) contractors participated in the bidding (6 PCCP options and 4 HMA option were bid) and all bids were substantially below the engineer's estimate. One (1) Contractor participated in both pavement type pay options. All contractors had the option to bid either HMA pay items section or PCCP pay items section or both. There was a third section in this bid was that comprised all the common items for the contract. The low bidder was determined from:
- Bid of HMA pay items section + PW cost of HMA, + Bid of common items section or
- Bid of PCCP pay items section + PW cost of PCCP, + Bid of common items section.
INDOT provided the following pavement design thickness for this project:
- PR 69 mainline
- 11 inches of PCCP or
- 13.5 inches of HMA
- SR 168 Ramps
- 9 inches of PCCP or
- 10 inches of HMA.
Bid Analysis Summary
| Bidders | PCCP Section | PW Cost for PCCP | Common Section | Bid Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | $10,827,777.86 | + | $1,480,742.91 | + | $11,462,530.17 | = | $23,771,050.94 |
| B | $10,893,212.51 | + | $1,480,742.91 | + | $11,852,906.82 | = | $24,226,862.24 |
| C | $10,811,918.05 | + | $1,480,742.91 | + | $12,866,562.56 | = | $25,159,223.52 |
| D | $10,385,506.50 | + | $1,480,742.91 | + | $13,377,752.26 | = | $25,244,001.67 |
| E | $10,730,801.60 | + | $1,480,742.91 | + | $13,409,247.85 | = | $25,620,792.36 |
| F | $10,021,549.70 | + | $1,480,742.91 | + | $14,500,954.02 | = | $26,003,246.63 |
| Bidder | HMA Section | PW Cost for HMA | Common Section | Bid Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | $10,692,433.15 | + | $2,353,504.28 | + | $11,462,530.17 | = | $24,508,467.60 |
| B | $10,992,127.95 | + | $2,353,504.28 | + | $11,852,906.82 | = | $25,198,539.05 |
| C | $10,777,604.90 | + | $2,353,504.28 | + | $12,866,562.56 | = | $25,997,671.74 |
| E | $11,039,122.07 | + | $2,353,504.28 | + | $13,409,247.85 | = | $26,801,874.20 |
The low bid amount, out of all 6 bids, was for HMA pay items option (Bidder A) and after adding PW cost of HMA and PCCP to the respective pavement type options, PCCP option was the low bid (Bidder A). PCCP pay items option was awarded for this contract. The PW cost factor affected the outcome of the bidding.
INDOT compared the estimated cost with actual low bid costs of both pavement types. The following table shows the cost comparison with low bid of those pavement items that were relative to the mainline pavements and relative to this alternate bid for pavement type.
All other items in the bids were common to both types of pavement. Shoulders and "S" Lines are to be HMA.
| Bid Item | Bid Quantities | Estimated Cost of Item Per Unit | Low Bid Cost of Item Per Unit | Range of Bid Costs of Item Per Unit | Average Bid Cost of Item Per Unit | HMA or PCCP Option |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QC/QA PCCP, 11 IN. | 111,292 yd2 | $29.88 | $27.26 | $25.00 - $28.00 | $26.37 | PCCP |
| QC/QA PCCP, 9 IN. | 17,778 yd2 | $27.31 | $22.48 | $22.00 - $29.00 | $23.92 | PCCP |
| Subbase for PCCP | 36,993 yd3 | $30.64 | $37.15 | $26.00 - $41.00 | $36.09 | PCCP |
| D-1 Contraction Joint | 68,270 ft | $8.71 | $9.50 | $8.57 - $9.75 | $9.28 | PCCP |
| QC/QA-HMA, 4, 76, Surface | 10,581 TON | $77.10 | $75.50 | $75.50 - $75.50 | $75.50 | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Surface | 2,184 TON | $49.99 | $64.00 | $64.00 - $64.00 | $64.00* | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 4, 76, Intermediate | 17,625 TON | $55.70 | $56.00 | $56.00 - $56.00 | $56.00* | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Intermediate | 4,212 TON | $49.65 | $53.00 | $53.00 - $53.00 | $53.00* | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 4, 64, Base | 49,481 TON | $47.80 | $50.55 | $50.55 - $50.55 | $50.55* | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Base | 3,422 TON | $49.57 | $51.50 | $51.50 - $51.50 | $51.50* | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 5, 76, Intermediate, OG | 19,348 TON | $53.80 | $48.25 | $48.25 - $48.25 | $48.25 | HMA |
* All Bidders were higher on HMA items.
The above table shows that pavement item bids on PCCP are lower than the estimates used in evaluation but on HMA all items are higher than the estimates except few. This indicates that a true cost savings was realized by INDOT in this process.
The table below compares some of the HMA items on the common section for the contract to check for unbalanced bids. These bids appear to be consistent and no anomalies were found.
| Bid Item | Bid Quantities | Low Bid Cost of Item Per Unit | Range of Bid Costs of Item Per Unit | Average Bid Cost of Item Per Unit | HMA or PCCP Bid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Surface | 718 TON | 62.10 | $61.85 - $74.00 | $63.94 | PCCP |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Surface | 718 TON | $64.00 | $64.00 - $64.00 | $64.00 | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Intermediate | 1,679 TON | $51.25 | $51.00 - $57.00 | $52.04 | PCCP |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Intermediate | 1,679 TON | $53.00 | $53.00 - $53.00 | $53.00 | HMA |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Base | 2,423 TON | $49.75 | $49.50 - $55.00 | $50.87 | PCCP |
| QC/QA-HMA, 2, 64, Base | 2,423 TON | $50.10 | $50.10 - $50.10 | $50.10 | HMA |
Conclusion
INDOT did not realize a saving immediately, at the bid opening, (HMA Low Bid - PCCP Low Bid = -$165,344.71). However after using the Bid Analysis amounts (after PW costs applied), INDOT saved the tax payers approximately $707,416.66 over the 50 year service life of the pavement. These savings include the reduction of INDOT's consultant cost of $30,000.00 for producing two sets of typical plan sheets and quantities. The in-house costs for INDOT were determined negligible.
The PW cost for future maintenance did impact the bid and which contractor received the contract. INDOT believes using this process of alternate bids for pavement type selection on this project was very successful.
PW of Future Maintenance of the Pavement I-69 (IR-31121)
PW of HMA Section = $2,353,504.28
PW of PCCP Section = $1,480,742.91
| Age in Years | Rehab. | Cost $ | Present Worth Cost $ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $109,895.95 |
| 6 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $97,697.10 |
| 9 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $86,852.37 |
| 12 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $77,211.44 |
| 15 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $68,640.69 |
| 18 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $61,021.32 |
| 20 | Mill and Functional Overlay | 2,755,501.00 | $1,257,574.69 |
| 23 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $50,155.08 |
| 26 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $44,587.68 |
| 29 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $39,638.29 |
| 32 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $35,238.29 |
| 35 | Mill and Resurface | 1,305,397.00 | $330,807.80 |
| 38 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $27,849.33 |
| 41 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $24,757.96 |
| 44 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $22,009.73 |
| 47 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $19,566.57 |
| Total HMA PW Cost $2,353,504.28 | |||
| Age in Years | Rehab. | Cost $ | Present Worth Cost $ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Reseal the Joint | 143,367.00 | $104,756.86 |
| 16 | Reseal the Joint | 143,367.00 | $76,544.81 |
| 24 | Reseal the Joint | 143,367.00 | $55,930.55 |
| 30 | Mill and Functional Overlay | 2,775,977.00 | $855,885.53 |
| 33 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $33,882.97 |
| 36 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $30,121.84 |
| 39 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $26,778.21 |
| 42 | Mill and Resurface | 1,333,844.00 | $256,864.92 |
| 45 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $21,163.21 |
| 48 | Joint Seal | 123,618.00 | $18,814.01 |
| Total PCCP PW Cost $1,480,742.91 | |||
PW = F [1/(1+i)n]
Where: F = Future Construction Cost
i = Discount rate (4%)
n = Number of years from year zero
| Total Cost | Alternative 1: 11 inches PCCP | Alternative 2: 13.5 inches HMA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency Cost ($1000) | User Cost ($1000) | Agency Cost ($1000) | User Cost ($1000) | |
| Undiscounted Sum | $5,158.01 | $0.00 | $5,791.55 | $0.00 |
| Present Value | $1,480.74 | $0.00 | $2,353.50 | $0.00 |
| EUAC | $68.93 | $0.00 | $109.56 | $0.00 |
| Lowest Present Value Agency Cost | Alternative 1: 11 inches PCCP | |||
| Lowest Present Value User Cost | Alternative 1: 11 inches PCCP | |||
| Year | Alternative 1: 11 inches PCCP | Alternative 2: 13.5 inches HMA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency Cost ($1000) | User Cost ($1000) | Agency Cost ($1000) | User Cost ($1000) | |
| 0 | ||||
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||
| 3 | $123.62 | |||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 6 | $123.62 | |||
| 7 | ||||
| 8 | $143.37 | |||
| 9 | $123.62 | |||
| 10 | ||||
| 11 | ||||
| 12 | $123.62 | |||
| 13 | ||||
| 14 | ||||
| 15 | $123.62 | |||
| 16 | $143.37 | |||
| 17 | ||||
| 18 | $123.62 | |||
| 19 | ||||
| 20 | $2,755.50 | |||
| 21 | ||||
| 22 | ||||
| 23 | $123.62 | |||
| 24 | $143.37 | |||
| 25 | ||||
| 26 | $123.62 | |||
| 27 | ||||
| 28 | ||||
| 29 | $123.62 | |||
| 30 | $2,775.98 | |||
| 31 | ||||
| 32 | $123.62 | |||
| 33 | $123.62 | |||
| 34 | ||||
| 35 | $1,305.40 | |||
| 36 | $123.62 | |||
| 37 | ||||
| 38 | $123.62 | |||
| 39 | $123.62 | |||
| 40 | ||||
| 41 | $123.62 | |||
| 42 | $1,333.84 | |||
| 43 | ||||
| 44 | $123.62 | |||
| 45 | $123.62 | |||
| 46 | ||||
| 47 | $123.62 | |||
| 48 | $123.62 | |||
| 49 | ||||
| 50 | ||||