Structural Design Program Review Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Structural Design Program Review Massachusetts Department of Transportation September 20 -23, 2011

Purpose of Review Provide a service to Mass. DOT management Identify best practices Recognize areas of excellence Document policies & practices Identify opportunities for improvement

Outline Review Team Review Process General Observations Commendable Practices Opportunities for Improvement Discussion

Review Team Olu Adeyemi – FHWA, Division Office, Cambridge Tom Saad – FHWA, Resource Center, Matteson Jamal Elkaissi – FHWA, Resource Center, Denver Derrell Manceaux – FHWA, Resource Center, Denver Mike Arpino – FHWA, Division Office, Cambridge Guatam Sen - Mass. DOT, Boston Edmund Newton - Mass. DOT, Boston Craig Shike – Oregon DOT

Schedule Tuesday Kick off Meeting Deputy Chief Engineer Director of Project Development Design and Project Managers ABP, In-House and Consultant Managers Hydraulics Engineer Wednesday State Bridge Engineer ABP, In-House and Consultant Designers Roadway Design, Environmental and Planning Engineers Materials Division

Schedule Thursday Geotechnical Engineers Construction Materials Control District Office Engineers Consultants Friday Close Out

General Observations Professional and Motivated Staff Good Communications, but Specific Suggestions for Improvement Dynamic Work Environment / Chain of Command Numerous Major Advancements in last Five Years

Opportunities for Improvement

Success due to leadership’s commitment to implement new practices and innovative delivery methods ABP ABC FAST 14 DBE / DUCE (District Bridge Engineer-District Utility Constructability Engineer) Design Build Implementation

Development, standardization and implementation of “State of the Practice” procedures Design manuals Standard structural details NEXT beam LRFD procedures

Flexibility of staff to adapt to multiple reorganizations ABP Design Build Special Project team New District Positions In-House Design

Expanded partnership with districts, consultants, and traveling public ABP Design Build Manuals Development Expedited Project Delivery Environmental: Context Sensitive Design & Bridge Aesthetics

Improvement in specific practices and procedures Process of public involvement for project development is good Decision matrix for implementing ABC technologies Standard details Bridge design manual developed and updated in-house 1/2

Improvement in specific practices and procedures (cont’d) Forefront on crash tested bridge rails and transitions All utility relocations must appear on plans Record of Design Report – evaluating Consultants Use of VIRTIS Ratings as check of design 2/2

Opportunities for Improvement

Training & professional development/need for better communication Need for Structural Engineer career path Training for Structural and Consultant engineers Recognition / reward system Develop effective team environment Implement rotational assignments Succession Planning No incentive for PE license

Establish In-House bridge design Track design hours / cost Consultant review section does not have project authority Technician to maintain standard details and CADD support In-house highway design capacity needs to be developed More focus on bridge design effort

Clearly document roles & responsibilities In some cases, engineers do not understand full scope of responsibilities Districts challenging roles and responsibilities Consultants receive conflicting comments in plan reviews Authority unclear

QC/QA Inconsistent QC practices QA procedures not clearly defined / standardized Some reviews are redundant Can use bridge load rating as valid QC method

Tools required Update software Substructure structural software Civil-3 d locks computer Adobe WORD Scanner Update computer hardware

Additional recommendations Need for Hydraulics Program Review Applied research Use of electronic transfer of drawings and plans/shop drawings Update Standard Specifications Maintenance Manual Capital improvement plan for preventive maintenance

Response to ADA request regarding staffing levels following reorganization Limits on hydraulic and geotechnical capabilities Increased work load for in-house staff - identify where scoping will be conducted

Schedule for development of final report Submit draft report to Review Team for comments (Nov 2011) Comments incorporated (Jan 2012) Final report (Feb 2012)

Additional topics…. . questions? ?