6TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
PERFORMANCE-BASED
MAINTENANCE
APPROACH DB/P3
Edward P. Pensock, Jr. P.E.
Strategic Project Division Director
Texas Department of Transportation
Footer Text
Date
Design-Build vs. CDA Contracts
Design-Build
CDA
 Does not include private financing
 Similar to D-B, but may be done as:
 Not a prescriptive design
— Toll Concession
 Innovation by the Developer
— Design-Build Finance(f)
 Review at project level as packages
are released
— Design-Build-Operate-Maintain
 Coordination with FHWA as needed
 May include optional Capital
Maintenance Agreement
— Design-Build-Maintain
— Design-Build
 Use of independent engineer
 Limited to 3 projects per fiscal year
approved by Commission
 Construction must be estimated at
$50 million or more
 More risk transfer than D-B
 May include private financing
 Limited to specific projects
identified in Senate Bill 1730
3
11
TxDOT Business Programs
Delivery Methods: Risk Allocation Assignments1
Project Delivery Method / CDA Business Model
Risk Type
Design-Build
Concession
Environmental Approval
Traffic & Revenue
Owner
Financing
Operation & Maintenance
Environmental Compliance
ROW Acquisition2
Shared
Utility Delays
Design
Construction
Developer
Schedule Delays
1
2
Actual risk assignments may vary by project
Eminent Domain delays retained by the owner
4
DB/P3 Maintenance Contracts
 Developer responsible for design,
construction, operations,
maintenance and handback
 Long term 15-25 years Mandatory
O&M Period
 5 to15 year O&M Performance
Requirements may apply to a DB +
CMA
5
Performance-Based Approach
 Technical Provisions
– TxDOT defines desired project outcome in the technical requirements
– General Maintenance Obligations
– Maintenance Management Plan (Reviewed and Approved by TxDOT)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Performance requirements,
Measurement procedures,
Threshold values at which maintenance is required,
Inspection procedures and frequencies, and
Subsequent maintenance to address noted deficiencies,
Impacts to Related Transportation Facilities
Compensation to TxDOT resulting from Maintenance Contractor’s
failure to meet the performance requirements.
6
Maintenance Agreements
 Comprehensive Maintenance Agreements and
Capital Maintenance Agreements
 Option for maintenance agreements if
pricing acceptable

Achieves price certainty

Efficient for projects with unique features
 Beneficial to achieving long-term
ownership of design by the developer
 Non-compliance handled through Noncompliance Points or Liquidated Damages
• Non-Compliance Events
• D&C Work
• O&M Work
• Non-Compliance Points
• Payment Deductions
• Increased oversight if
triggers are exceeded
• Warning notice of default
if points accumulate and
exceed threshold
• Liquidated Damages
• Unplanned lane closures
• Safety defect not
repaired
7
O&M Agreements Examples
Concession (50 year term of contract):
 SH 130 Segments 5 & 6
 North Tarrant Expressway Segments 1 & 2
 I-635 LBJ Freeway
Design/Build (three-5 year Capital
Maintenance Agreements):
 SH 130 Segments 1 - 4
 DFW Connector Dallas
 Dallas Horseshoe
 SH 99 (Grand Parkway) Segments F1, F2, and G
 IH 35E Managed Lanes Project
 Loop 1604 Western Extension
8
O&M Agreements Examples
 Design-Build – Extended
Comprehensive Maintenance
Agreements (COMA)
 SH 183 Managed Lanes –
 25 year maintenance
responsibility (also includes
five year extended
construction financing)
 Loop 375 Border Highway West –
 15 year maintenance
responsibility
9
Questions?
Edward P. Pensock, Jr., P.E.
Strategic Projects Division
Texas Department of Transportation
Office: 512-936-0903
E-Mail: Ed.Pensock@txdot.gov
10
6TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
KEY
CONSIDERATIONS IN TxDOT’S
TOTAL MAINTENANCE
SPECIFICATION
John Roberts
TxDOT Maintenance Division
Performance-Based Contracts
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
 Internal Input
 Industry Input
 Effect Measures of Performance
13
INTERNAL INPUT
 Meeting with internal personnel to develop
expectations of performance that are
realistic/desired.
 Evaluate input to provide consistency of
expectations statewide.
Goal = buy-in
14
INDUSTRY INPUT
 Are our expectations realistic?
 Bring good ideas for better execution.
 Have we provided clear communication of
expectations?
Goal = decrease risk during execution
15
EFFECT MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE
 Condition Assessment
 Key Performance Indicators (KPI)
 Payment Reduction Strategy
Goal = Perform. Get Paid
Don’t Perform. Don’t Get Paid
16
WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?
Category
Quality
Contractor Performance
Criteria
%(1)
Condition Assessment Element Score
Condition Assessment Component Score
Pavement & Bridges
Traffic Operations
Roadside
Condition Assessment Overall Assessment
8
16
8
8
10
Safety Key Performance Indicators
20
Safety
Timeliness
Time Key Performance Indicators
(1) % represents the potential percentage reduction in
payment each month.
30
100
17
WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?
 Failure to submit the initial Quality Management Plan
within the first 60 days = 5% reduction in payment the 1st
month & then a 10 % reduction in payment thereafter.
 Failure to submit the Safety Plan within the first 30 days =
5% percent reduction in payment in the 1st month & a
10% reduction in payment each month thereafter.
 Others
18
EXAMPLE KPIs
Safety KPI
Traffic Control
Implement compliant TCP.
Perform Traffic Control Compliant
Implement noncompliant TCP
with TMUTCD, TCP Standards,
corrective actions within 30 minutes
and BC Standards
of notification.
Time KPI
Asphaltic Pavement Surfaces
Repair potholes and pavement
failures.
Temporary - within 1 hour rural and
2 hours urban and metro.
Permanent - within 30 days.
19
KPI PAYMENT METHODOLOGY
# of Meeting Requirements/Total # of Occurrences = %
Compliance
Safety
Range
Payment
100%
+1%
95%
+0.5%
95% >
90%
0%
90% >
85%
-2%
85% >
80%
-5%
80% >
75%
-10%
75% >
70%
-20%
Time
Range
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
>
>
>
>
>
>
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
50%
Payment
0%
-2%
-5%
-10%
-20%
-30%
20
Questions
John A. Roberts, P.E.
(512) 416-3083
John.Roberts@txdot.gov
21