The Online Information Source could be organized into different tables that together could comprise a relational database. Users would be able to search the relational database and assemble tailored reports to suit their research needs. The relational database would also provide the flexibility to accommodate the addition of new projects and data over time. It is envisioned that the information source would be able to accommodate a variety of file formats and that it could provide users with access to images, video, and project documents.
As demonstrated in Figure 2, the contents of the online information source could be organized into seven data tables. Three of these would provide descriptive information on the P3 and non-P3 projects, as well as information on the legislative contexts in which they have been implemented and information on the sponsoring agencies' policies and capacity. Given that legislative contexts are fluid, the legislative information included in the online information source should be date-stamped and updated on a regular basis. This will enable researchers to gain access to accurate information about legislative context at the time decisions were made. Many of the data elements would need clear instructions on how to interpret and synthesize data from disparate sources into the information source. The intent is that the information would enable users to make "apples to apples" comparisons among project cohorts of their own choice. The remaining four data tables would contain information on the performance outcomes of the projects.
Using the approach described above, the data tables would provide the following types of information:
Tier 1 of the information source would include all the information in the above categories that is needed for project oversight. Tier 2 would add the more detailed information for further analysis. Appendix B of this report contains a detailed discussion and a list of suggested performance metrics that could be included in each of the data tables, including the purpose of the data tables, their information requirements, and potential data sources.
Figure 2. Relational Database Structure
Source: WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2017
View larger version of Figure 2
The remainder of this chapter identifies the information recommended for inclusion in Tier 1 of the online information source. Industry experts reviewing the discussion paper also suggested that rather than collecting all the Tier 1 information initially, it might be beneficial to collect the subset of Tier 1 metrics that are available in the FHWA Major Projects database. That information could be shared with state DOTs to provide FHWA and the Bureau with sense of its usefulness to State DOTs and, if warranted, modifications could be made to the data collection approach.
The proposed data elements to describe the project information are presented in Table 3.
Data Element | Potential Data Source(s) |
---|---|
Project name |
|
Project location (city/county/region, state), project limits (latitude and longitude, and mileposts) and setting (urban, suburban, rural) | |
Project topography (flat, rolling or mountainous) | |
Total capital cost, including construction, financing, right-of-way, and utility relocations (some of which may be done under separate contracts) necessary for facility development | |
Procurement model, including design-bid-build, design-build, and DBFOM real toll and availability payment concessions | |
Concession period | |
Project type, including greenfield highway, priced managed lane, bridge, tunnel, brownfield/asset monetization (long-term lease concession) | |
Project length, number of lanes and lane-miles or span length and vertical clearance (for water crossings) | |
Number of interchanges | |
Toll status, i.e., tolled or non-tolled, and fixed vs. variable tolls | |
Utilization, including annual average daily traffic (AADT) by year | |
Roadway segments by type: on surface, elevated section, in trench, below ground in tunnel | |
For highways, number of bridges and length of elevated structures or flyovers |
The proposed data elements that capture the key legislative provisions are summarized in Table 4. Note that the information should reflect the status of legislation at the time the decision was made with regard to project delivery method. Amendments and changes to legislative authorities should also be captured, together with date stamps. This approach would provide researchers with a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of the state legal environments affecting the use of alternative project delivery strategies throughout the data collection period. Date-stamped information could also be included about past legislative changes and amendments.
Data Element (reflecting status at the time project delivery method was selected) | Potential Data Source(s) |
---|---|
Whether design-build procurement is allowed |
|
Whether DBFOM concessions are allowed | |
Year of enactment and sunset provisions | |
Whether the legislation explicitly allows the conversion of existing free roads to toll roads | |
Term limits on concession agreements | |
Limitations on utilizing availability payment structures | |
Whether non-compete clauses are restricted or prohibited | |
Limitations on utilizing progress, milestone and completion payments | |
Whether high occupancy toll operations or congestion pricing are allowed | |
Whether legislative approvals are required to finance revenue bonds, levy user fees, implement innovative finance partnerships, or complete the project procurement process | |
Whether creation of a P3 advisory body is required (this is different from a dedicated alternative delivery or P3 unit) |
|
Whether both solicited and unsolicited proposals are allowed, and under what conditions | |
Whether proposal evaluation criteria are specified | |
How the confidentiality of ATCs is addressed and whether the payment of stipends to unsuccessful proposers allows the agency to use the innovations in their proposals | |
Whether the public agency is required to charge application fees for review of unsolicited proposals | |
Whether authority is limited to specific projects or certain types of projects | |
Information addressing the authority to set toll rates | |
Whether the legislation allows the highway agency to issue toll revenue bonds | |
Whether revenue sharing is explicitly allowed |
The proposed agency policy and capacity data elements that could be gathered are summarized in Table 5. Note that the information should reflect the status of agency policy and capacity at the time the decision was made with regard to project delivery method.
Data Element (reflecting status at the time project delivery decision was made) | Potential Data Source(s) |
---|---|
Presence of a dedicated P3 or alternative project delivery team, including the number of full-time employees on the team |
|
Number and status of past, current and future P3 procurements | |
Overall size of the project sponsor's 5-10- year capital program and the percentage of the program dedicated to the project | |
Whether financial feasibility and risk assessment studies were conducted using in-house personnel, with the help of private consultants, or solely using private consultants | |
Availability of a P3 advisory committee | |
Local revenue measures and policies on the use of the money they generate | |
Whether public funding in the form of up-front subsidies or revenue guarantees may be used to support the development of toll facilities | |
Financial self-sufficiency requirements for toll projects | |
Whether revenue sharing or cross subsidies are allowed | |
Local policies on tolling new highway capacity | |
Local policies on tolling existing highway capacity | |
Formal procedures for assessing new highway capacity for P3 feasibility | |
Toll rate setting authority | |
Toll rate setting flexibility | |
Agency policies on the use of external advisers |
These data elements should be date stamped so that users can track changes over time. The data elements will be available at the same level of detail for both Tier 1 and Tier 2.
The project development data elements for the Tier 1 level are summarized in Table 6.
Data Element | Potential Data Source(s) |
---|---|
Environmental review milestone dates, specifically
the following:
|
|
FEIS cost estimate, broken down by the following
elements (depending on the project delivery
method):1
|
|
Baseline Public Sector Comparator cost for P3
project evaluations only (not available for
all projects)
|
|
P3 Alternative cost (not available for all projects)
|
|
Note: (1) There is a diversity of conventions on how owner agencies present the breakdown of project cost items in the FEIS. Recognizing that the breakdown of project costs might not be consistent across agencies, it is suggested that three broad categories be included to capture capital, financial and other costs. The other cost category may include right-of-way, utility, engineering, contract administration and contingencies. |
Project procurement data elements to be included in the Tier 1 level are summarized in Table 7.
Data Element | Potential Data Source(s) |
---|---|
RFI issue and response dates |
|
Number of submittals |
|
RFQ issue, response and shortlisting dates |
|
RFQ number of submittals and shortlisted proposers |
|
RFQ evaluation criteria and scoring |
|
Draft RFP issue, response and award dates |
|
Number of draft RFPs issued for comment |
|
Number of submittals in response to RFP |
|
RFP evaluation criteria and scoring |
|
RFP requirements for local hiring |
|
RFP requirements for disadvantaged, minority, women, disabled veteran, and small business enterprises |
|
Amount and duration of coverage for all sureties and bonds |
|
Commercial close date (for P3 projects) or bid opening date (for non-P3 projects) |
|
Engineer's cost estimate and date |
|
Engineer's schedule estimate (substantial completion dates of key milestones) and dates |
|
Commercial close award cost and date |
|
Winning bidder's schedule estimate (substantial completion dates of key milestones) and dates |
|
Number of subcontractors |
|
Total cost value of all implemented ATCs |
|
Net schedule savings of all implemented ATCs |
|
Project costs at financial close |
|
Sources of finance, including public sector investments, debt, private equity, bond premiums, and interest income |
|
Sources of revenue |
|
Project implementation data elements to be included in the Tier 1 level are summarized in Table 8.
Data Element | Potential Data Source(s) |
---|---|
Design Timeline: Design completion date, notice to proceed date, total design duration |
|
Construction start and completion dates, and total construction duration |
|
Design and construction costs (aggregation of cost items depending on the project delivery method and availability of reliable data) |
|
Final contract time, including extensions granted by the agency, value engineering savings, and the number of days involving liquidated damages |
|
Cost items, including final contract costs, award costs, cost growth due to claims and change orders, value engineering savings, construction engineering costs, quality assurance costs, and liquidated damages costs. Any changes from prior entries should be noted. |
|
Number of change orders, cost change due to change orders, schedule change due to change orders |
|
Number of claims, total cost value of all resolved claims |
|
Number of claims by the cause type (e.g., award related, right-of-way, third party, site-related, delay, schedule acceleration, quality, owner requested changes, plans and specifications, supply-chain, and others) |
|
Number of claims settled by resolution type (i.e., project team review, agency review, arbitration and mediations, claims review board, and litigation) |
|
Total cost value of all claims settled by resolution type and dates |
|
Change orders by type (e.g., scope change, differing conditions, errors and omissions, force majeure and weather, right-of-way, environmental concerns, and others) and dates |
|
Cost value of all approved value engineering proposals |
|
Schedule savings of all approved value engineering proposals |
|
Operations and maintenance data elements to be included in the Tier 1 level are summarized in Table 9.
Data Element | Potential Data Source(s)3 |
---|---|
Traffic related elements (to be collected every
year):
|
|
Pavement condition related elements (to be collected
every year):
|
|
Pavement structure related elements (available
for sample sections only for pavement performance
modeling purposes, and to be collected every year):
|
|
Pavement condition thresholds (e.g. IRI, rutting, faulting, cracking and others) and handback criteria 5 |
|
Annual pavement maintenance, preservation and
rehabilitation cost elements:
|
|
Bridge condition related elements (to be collected
every year):
|
|
Bridge structure related elements:
|
|
Bridge condition thresholds for decks, superstructure, substructure, channels and channel protections, culverts and other elements, and handback criteria 5 |
|
Annual bridge maintenance and improvement cost
elements:
|
|
Annual financial performance metrics (for toll
projects):
|
|
Roadway maintenance costs per mile (aggregated at corridor level) by year |
|
Notes: |