Minutes of the Preconstruction Meeting for C-14335,

Minutes of the Post-construction Lessons Learned Meeting for C-14335

I-84 at 257th (Troutdale Interchange)

Thursday, April 19, 2012Persons Present:

ODOT: Mark Beeson, project manager

Adam Markell, assistant project manager

Bob Nichols, contract administration specialist

Bob Neill, assistant project manager

Sean Triana, project coordinator

Roger Floyd, inspector

Scott Mercer, inspector

Chris Bores, roadway designer

Carolyn Allen, roadway designer

Chris Lillegard, designer

Eric Fosgard, designer

Marco Singer, roadway designer

Jane Estes, ODOT Utilities

Tova Peltz, ODOT Geotechnical

Mary Young, ODOT Environmental

Dan Gunther, ODOT Hydro

Paul Wittbrodt, ODOT Hazmat

Sandy Prock, design team leader

Mony Mao, ODOT Traffic

David Haase, designer

David Evans & Associates: Bob Marshall, landscape designer

Chris Higgins, drainage engineer

DKS Associates: Colette Snoffin, traffic engineerShannon & Wilson: Allison Pyrch, project geotech engineer

Meeting was called to order, introductions were made, and the sign-in sheet was passed around.Project Summary:

The project widened North and South Frontage Roads at the Exit 17 Interchange from Interstate 84, adding one lane to the left side of each for a total of three lanes in each direction. The eastbound and westbound off ramps were also widened, the eastbound one specifically in anticipation of a future project to rebuild the Marine Drive overpass. Pro-ject work included installation of ITS and signal equipment.

The original contract amount was $3,409,384.00 as approved in Nutter Corpora-tions accepted bid. Final cost, including all changes, is $3,376,450.00. Total combined change order cost is $157,758.00, less than 5% of the overall contract. The project was completed within 60 days of the specified completion date, was under budget, and the Legislature is pleased with the outcome. The 257th Interchange-Troutdale project was funded through the 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA).Although there were significant bid item overruns and numerous change orders, many other bid items were under run or not used, saving enough to put the entire contract within the budgeted amount.

Lessons Learned from this job can be applied to assist with the design and con-struction of the successor project for I-84 bridge replacement and Marine Drive modern-ization, as well as other future projects in general.Lessons Learned During Construction:

The lessons from this job fell under three general themes and were highlighted with specific examples from the Project:1) Better Site Familiarity = Better designs that fit existing conditions: better designs can be achieved by having design personnel physically tour the site and get to know its layout and its unique conditions before trying to apply standard designs to the particular project. Examples include: a. Roadway stabilization: The wettest part of the project was not in the wetlands; it was along a drainage ditch on the north side of North Frontage Road where the ground level is so low that the water table actually protrudes above the surface during much of the year, creating what is essentially a swamp. To widen the roadway in this section, it was necessary to place stone embankment to bring the subgrade level up and stabilize the roadway prism by creating a hard, dry surface on which to build. One complicating factor was that there existed no bid item in the contract for stone embankment; a change order had to be written to create one, at a price that by all likelihood would have been lower on a bid item than the CCO turned out to be.b. Deficient storm drainage design: The drainage plans did not fully account for the existing facilities, resulting in the discovery of pipes connecting under I-84. Because of the difference between the site conditions and the Plans, an additional 400 feet of new 4-inch pipe had to be installed, added by CCO. In fact there had been a sketch made showing the other lines, and this sketch was known to exist by some of the designers, but other drawings which the team relied on to provide information did not show those other lines. In any case, Hydro needs to field-verify all drainage facilities on a job site prior to construction, and to make certain that all are accounted for.c. Sign issues: Street name signs were too large to fit in the spaces allotted for them on signal poles, either new or existing.d. Staging width: Sawcut along the North Frontage Road was too far out from the fog line, leaving insufficient room for two lanes of traffic to safely pass through the saw-cut area. There was also not enough room for barrels to separate the traveled way from the work area, without pinching traffic even more, so tubular markers had to be substituted for the barrels, increasing the danger to workers from errant vehicles. It was eventually decided that the sawcut location had to be moved further outward, which required recalculation to adjust the cut/fill balance, profile grinding to match the existing pavement, and designing a new section to move the longitudinal joints to match the lane lines. Grinding was required on the sawcut to get adequate coverage over the joint. The existing road surface was so uneven that leveling asphalt went far over the bid quantity.

2) Interdisciplinary review of discipline-specific work products prevent design conflicts (i.e., getting out of the silos that have traditionally set up internal barriers to communication). Examples include:a. Existing conduit reroutes: Closely related to the previous example regarding drainage pipes, some existing conduits had to be rerouted to avoid drainage features not addressed in the Plans. An illumination conduit was moved so it would be clear of a water quality swale and drainage ditch, and a fiber conduit was rerouted away from the swale.b. ESCP update for Drainage Features: A CCO was issued to address areas of possible concentrated flows in drainage ditches that werent accounted for in the original Plans.

3) A decision that looks like it would save money during design might not work out quite right in the field, and actually end up costing more in the construction phasethere is a delicate balancing act between the PE and construction costs, which must be carefully considered to keep the total costs under control. Examples include:

a. Thermoplastic substituted for striping tape: The tape which had originally been specified for striping proved to be unsuitable for the heavy truck traffic that characterizes this location. Large vehicles entering and exiting the truck stops, and swerving between lanes while rounding corners, continually rip up the tape, rendering it useless. Thermoplastic installed in its place has held up well under the truck traffic.b. Staging issues caused by existing illumination on eastbound off-ramp: The job called for widening of the ramp to the south, overrunning the existing illumination poles and replacing them further out. The new lighting couldnt be installed until the widening was done, so to keep the ramp illuminated during embankment construction and paving, the old lights had to remain in use somehow, even though they were in what would eventually become the middle of the road. Fill had to be built up around the existing poles, and there was no temporary illumination system included in the contract, so that when the old poles had to be removed to allow work to continue, the ramp was left dangerously unlighted for an extended period of time. The ramp illumination arrangement was another last-minute design decision; the constructability review indicated that the poles could be worked around. The reviewers probably assumed that temporary casing would be placed around them before embankment began. In any case, we should not have relied on the Contractor to figure out a way on its own to handle the situation, but should instead have made clearer instructions on what to do with the illumination. A disagreement between ODOT and the Contractor ensued; The Contractor insisted it was not their responsibility to keep the lights on no matter what. They insisted they had a job to do, and needed to do whatever it took to keep the project on schedule. The Contract required that illumination be maintained along the ramp during all nighttime hours, and the Contractor recognized that, but they found it impossible to keep to that requirement and still do satisfactory contract work.c. Narrow Consultant Contract Scoping: Several of the previously mentioned examples of issues also were caused by scoping Consultant Design Contracts too narrowly, including conflicts between Consultant Designs, and this had ripple effects throughout the entire Project. No electrical work had been planned in the southwest quadrant of the Marine Drive/NFR intersection, so DKS was not told there was an existing power pole there, resulting in the drainage and embankment plan for that area not accounting for the pole.4) Miscellaneous: Some problems were significant, but didnt fit neatly under a theme from earlier. Examples include:

a. S-1 markers: State forces were unable to supply S-1 markers as outlined in the Specifications. These are a new item, and contractors, as well as many state personnel, are not yet used to them. Trying to procure, prepare, and install these items involved a steep learning curve for everyone. In fact, many contractors, know exactly where to find S-1 markers (they are the same as flexible delineators), though under the contract they were designated as state-supplied (but ODOT had a much harder time locating a supply). In hindsight, it appears that S-1s should not be state-supplied any more, since it is easier and cheaper for the Contractor to get them than us.b. Deceptive cut/fill balance: The job was designed as an excavation project, meaning there was supposedly more excavation than embankment, eliminating the need to import material from off-site. However, the reality turned out to be far different. Saw-cut errors, as was discussed earlier, altered the balance. In addition, the expectation of being able to use recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) was unrealistic; contractors and the State both discourage this use, since it is far more valuable as a commodity to sell to pavers for mixing into new asphalt concrete, and it may be too contaminated to incorporate into earth embankment. There have even been proposals to reclassify RAP as a hazardous material, making it totally unavailable for fill. Building large fill at the off-ramp would require opening up the entire project at once to find all available fill, which, once again, would violate DEQ regulations.c. High groundwater: Sign footing designs ran into major conflict with the areas notoriously high water table. The ground water level is not only much higher, on average, than in other parts of the Portland region, but it also fluctuates wildly. At some times water can come within a foot or even just inches of the surface (and even reach the surface, as in the swamp on the north side of the NFR); at other times it disappears to 15 feet or more down. These fluctuations do not always follow seasonal patterns. One solution mentioned that should end surprises with regard to ground water and sign footings (and drilled shafts) is to put special instructions in the Plans and Special Provisions, for all projects located in the Columbia River bottomlands and other high-water areas, to make contractors aware of this characteristic and plan accordingly. Subcontractors should be looking at the geological data sheets, along with the Primes; all the information is on them. Even better yet, a note could be placed on the earthwork plan sheets, and a subsurface conditions section added to the Specials. Then, bid items for proper materials and construction methods are to be present in the contract (such as for dewatering).

d. Alignment redesign: A large number of alignments came together at the North Frontage Road/Graham Road/Westbound off-ramp intersection (at the former Wendys restaurant), which were poorly labeled and apparently inconsistent, not using the same references. This situation needed large amounts of Erics time to straighten out so that work could proceed confidently here.e. Erosion and Sediment Control: The inlet protection devices originally installed by the Contractor, which are listed as an approved item on the QPL, did not meet DEQs requirements, and DEQ ordered them replaced with an item that does meet the requirements of the NPDES 1200 CA permit. The possibility was brought up of changing the inlet protection specs to conform with the DEQ standards, so as to prevent this situation from arising on future projects. Meanwhile, it is best to fully document that ODOT and the Contractor are doing everything they can to provide proper erosion control measures, to prove to DEQ that there is no intention to take short cuts. This would include more scoping for pre-construction site visits to devise better BMPs. Also required was a re-issue of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to be implemented in phases, corresponding to the traffic staging phases, rather than for the whole job as one unit. A change order was needed to compensate the Contractor for emergency erosion control BMPs required by specs. DEQ was not happy with what it considered excessive excavation around the Project. Though there was more than adequate runoff blockage and capture and no place for the water to go, as Sean put it, DEQ was still concerned about the risk of erosion even in the absence of actual erosion. It just looked bad to them that there was so much ground uncovered, despite that being absolutely unavoidable to build the ramp. Sean emphasized that nothing wrong had been done, and no violations had been committed; DEQ simply was judging all road projects based on the recent experience with the Milk Creek bridge project in Mulino where environmental regulations had been brazenly flouted by its contractor. The foul-ups at Mulino, some at DEQ seem to think, constitute a pretext for that agency to harass ODOT and local agencies doing road work. Responsibility for the ESCP is an ongoing dispute between ODOT and contractors.

f. Multi-post Breakaway Hinges: The working drawings for sign height verifications, which were supplied by DKS, did not account for the hinges on the multi-post breakaway signs, so that route marker frames did not fit as designed, requiring rearrangement of legends and the substitution of C-channels for the frames. Discussion of Lessons Learned: Drainage surveys have to be more complete. This issue should be brought up at the next project managers meeting. Design of drainage facilities cant be considered complete unless and until all existing invert elevations are obtained and all existing fa-cilities are accounted for. Surveyors are needed to get this information from the field, since they have the legal authority to access private property for this purpose, and design-ers do not.During the PE phase, Hydro did aerial surveying of the project area, obtaining most major grades. However, the effort was hampered by a directive given by Steve Muma, the Hydro division manager, that only certain authorized inverts are to be measured. In the interests of saving money, he feels that the most important facilities should convey over 90% of the information needed, without wasting time by going over every little bit; but in this case, that 90% was not sufficient to include the entire existing system, setting up the construction office and the Contractor for unpleasant surprises. The Construction office had to come back later and do a ground examination, popping all the manholes on the South Frontage Road, where some previously unknown connections were found.Actually, a more thorough drainage survey would have saved much in construction cost, but indeed would have cost more in preliminary engineering. Again this comes down to the balancing act in funding the two halves of the equation. On the other hand, the issue came up late in the design phase and time was coming to an end. The drainage was only one of a large number of concerns that emerged right around that time, and it had to be dealt with quickly, especially given the strict JTA schedule. Time was simply so tight that not everything could be dealt with satisfactorily.Comparisons between design and construction surveys are needed to provide a basis for cost containment (go with the cheapest one).Everyone seems to be looking for something different, depending on discipline or area of expertise. Thus, all involved personnel should make site visits to get their own take on how to go about presenting the project, then share their findings to assemble a comprehensive plan of action. Ideally, people should go in interdisciplinary teams so that communication can be shared in the field where the site features are readily visible to all. However, very large groups of visitors should be discouraged, as they make neighbors nervous, and the public gets a bad impression of the agency.Site visits can be an opportunity to check the design surveys for completeness, including all manholes, catch basins, illumination, and electrical and utility lines.Bob Neill added that all projects should be surveyed individually, and that design not rely on as-builts or old surveys done for previous contracts. Tova stated that Geotech needs to accompany surveyors to explain what kind of information is required, what de-tails to get, and how to get them. She said to never trust the Contractors surveys at face value, but to always verify them.Dan asked, what is the goal for number of change orders on a project? Zero? Bob answered that they are intended for the really unforeseeable circumstances that pop up on most jobs, over which the Contractor has no control. Usually, money for change orders is provided for out of the contingency item which is added into the contract at bid time. They are not to be used to fix problems that the designers had a reasonable chance of anticipating beforehand. Sean mentioned that the bonus payment for HMAC should be included in the original contract as an anticipated item, but sometimes it too comes from the contingency fund. A much more standardized system has to be developed to avoid future confusion.Calculation and measurement of bid item quantities must be as accurate as possi-ble.Tova really appreciates the effort made by the PM Office to make the best of a haphazard design and make the final result turn out well.Shaft drillers need to make sure that they go down only a few feet at a time be-fore they extend casing.Environmental is now reviewing and commenting on specifications and bid items. Sandy said that if you see something that looks wrong, even if it does not fall under your specific field of expertise, take a note of it and let others on the team know what is going on so it can be properly dealt with. Again this is about breaking down silos and working together.

Mark would like time extensions for consultant authorization, so they can stick around beyond project completion for another six to nine months. This way they will still be available to help out with post-construction and final approval issues. Mark also wants consultant contracts to be moved from the discipline managers to project managers, to consolidate the decision-making process under one roof.

Temporary signal poles need to be identified by station and offset.

Anything that is different from the Plans should be noted as such; in case of any conflict between shop drawings and the Plans, the shop drawings do not take precedence.Consultants should be more proactive in tracking changes to the contract, rather than waiting until there is a conflict caused by their not knowing about them and using old information.If erosion control is to be phased, it is best that phases be defined at the beginning, based on traffic staging. Upon any changes to the traffic staging plan, the onus is on the consultant to change the erosion control plan to fit the new traffic plan.Allison stated that it is highly important that comprehensive subsurface informa-tion be made available, and that designers have to be proactive about obtaining it. Con-sultants must do research that is good enough for ODOT to base designs on, designs that are reasonably assured of achieving the objectives of the project. One way to assist with this goal is to look at a similar, completed project with lessons learned to find examples of situations that could arise on the new job, information from which can be input into the design process early on.One question that then came up was, what if its not quite to spec, but it works anyway? This one was meant to refer to the compost, where a sample was sent to the State Materials Lab, who issued a lab report giving test results as unsatisfactory, even as the compost itself performed its function within the contract requirements. It turned out that in this case the wrong material was supplied to the job. It needs to be ensured that this mistake does not happen againpossibly specifications regarding compost need to be made stricter. Another possible move would be to redefine compost materials as a field-tested item, which would trigger retesting at intervals, as opposed to the present standard of testing it only once.The traffic island at the NFR/Graham intersection should have been bordered by a low-profile mountable curb, instead of the high curb that was constructed there, since the frontage roads are classified as high-volume with a greater risk of accidents.